Agenda-setting, priming and framing theories have been successfully researched since the 1970’s, but continue to draw controversy and question over their methodology and generalizability (Paletz, 142-143). Critics argue that additional factors may impact what news gets covered and why only certain information is presented. For instance during the Vietnam War the United States press corps depended on the government for much of its information, thus the government had the ability to shape the agenda. Alternatively, the public can embrace an issue and the media can respond by saturating the market with the issue, evidenced by the Ethiopia famine coverage in the 1980’s that attracted celebrity attention and concern prior to becoming saturated in the media. Moreover, the personal views of a news correspondent can both prevent certain views from being presented as well as promoting certain views (Fallows, 36-37).

The process of "news-making" is multi-faceted, making any grand theory problematic. Political and social scientists are often confined to manageable research projects, resulting in the use of case studies, which are in and of themselves monstrous tasks. As Political Communication scholar John Zaller explains, "the effect of Media Politics on political outcomes must be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis, because sometimes the effects are real and lasting and other times they are not" (Zaller, 187). The Kathie Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal provides a context in which to evaluate the phenomenon of media agenda-setting, framing and priming.

This analysis seeks to confirm that the media selected the Gifford scandal for its entertainment value, ultimately generating increased ratings and profits. Through prior agenda setting, by not covering sweatshop stories and by subsequent saturated coverage of the Gifford scandal, the media provide evidence that it is an agenda setting institution with the ability (and intent in this author's opinion) to entertain instead of inform the public.

Little did Gifford know on the morning of April 23, 1996, that by the end of the week she would be publicly held responsible for the inhumane, harsh factory conditions where her Wal-Mart clothing line was manufactured by children, resulting in an infotainment spectacle that garnered national attention. Arriving on the set of LIVE! Regis and Kathie Lee late and visibly irritated, Gifford displayed a tantrum on national television--apparently her spring wardrobe had not yet arrived at the studio. Whining to her co-host, Regis Philbin, as millions of viewers fell witness Gifford lamented, "They treat us as if we were on local television!" (WWW: Around the Dial). Such trivial problems were soon forgotten. A few days later on April 29, National Labor Committee Director Charles Kernhagen addressed a gathering of House Democrats explaining his discovery of the Honduran factory where children manufactured Gifford’s Wal-Mart clothing line (WWW: Group Claims KLG). Kernhagen went on to explain the harsh conditions and while holding up a pair of Gifford’s trousers made in the Honduran factory, he added, "We call on Kathie Lee to use her national prominence to say that never again will child labor be used to produce garments." At this point, the media was uninterested in what Kernhagen had to say, preferring the twelve-year old Canadian labor activist who had been featured on 60 Minutes the previous evening (Kernhagen Interview, 5/18/99). Kernhagen left the gathering for New York, having been trumped by a twelve-year old activist.

The definitive moment that catapulted Gifford into the news headlines was her subsequent reaction to questions from a Los Angeles Times news reporter for an on-line story that never even ran (Kernhagen Interview, 5/18/99). Forgoing a phone call to the NLC or her publicist, Gifford went on her morning talk show and tearfully responded to Kernhagen’s allegations as posed by the L.A. Times reporter, "You can say I'm ugly, you can say I'm not talented. But when you say I don't care about children...mister, you better answer your phone because my attorney is calling you today. How dare you?" (Bearak, A1). Responding to Gifford’s sensational virtuoso performance, the media picked up the story and ran with it just as Gifford ran with the issue to save her credibility. She does, after all, contribute a portion of her Wal-Mart clothing line profits to children’s charities. By the time Kernhagen arrived back in New York, reporters inspired by Gifford’s tearful performance were waiting for him at the NLC headquarters. In addition to wanting to know more about Gifford’s role, they wanted to know what other celebrities endorsed products manufactured in sweatshops. Kernhagen directed them to NIKE endorser, Michael Jordan, whose lack of a response to allegations when questioned by reporters in a live post-game interview proved futile. Kernhagen argues that without a response, especially like the one Gifford afforded, there is no story. Jordan was spared the obligation of activism.

There is little evidence to support her anti-Wal-Mart accusation but much to refute it. The media singled out Gifford, utilizing an episodic frame instead of a thematic one, as will be evidenced in the content analysis section below. Employing episodic framing enabled reporters to gloss over the historical context, broad societal and economic causes or potential alternatives to sweatshop conditions. Why would the media want to denounce Wal-Mart, the source of large advertising campaigns, thus revenue and profit? Kernhagen suggests that reporters get "indirect hints" from networks when sensitive stories arise, rendering minimal coverage (Kernhagen Interview, 5/18/99). Indeed, Wal-Mart was not the primary target of this media campaign and was cited in stories much less frequently than Gifford. Similarly, Disney's labor rights violations were overlooked at the expense of Gifford. Disney owns the syndicated rights to LIVE! Regis and Kathie Lee and could have also been an easy media target—especially so being the world’s largest retail chain maintaining manufacturing agreements with over 30,000 of the world's factories (WWW: The Peoples Right to Know). Instead, Disney implemented its own coverage providing for a comprehensive damage control campaign through one of its many media outlets.

Syndicated columnist and media activist Norman Solomon criticized Disney for focusing on the anguish of Gifford and Disney's vested interest in their television program instead of on suffering sweatshop employees who manufacture Disney apparel in grave working conditions. Solomon explains, "In May, while Disney continued to escape media scrutiny of its consumer products, the company did what it could to stabilize Gifford's career. When she failed to shake off the scandal, Disney wheeled a big gun: ABC News. In a hastily arranged May 22 segment, ABC's "Prime Time Live" correspondent Diane Sawyer acknowledged that both Gifford's syndicated show and ABC are owned by Disney. "Prime Time" then proceeded with a sympathetic and even fawning treatment," touting Gifford's good charity work for children (Solomon, 15).

By focusing on Gifford and not the sweatshop issue, Disney and ABC framed the issue as episodic, leading to the blame being assigned to Gifford instead of multi-national corporations, policy-making institutions or societal factors. Such a frame primed the public to evaluate the issue based on Gifford's behaviors, emotions and statements, instead of on the historical context, reasons for international factory labor and the role of multi-national corporations. A missed opportunity to educate the public indeed, but it would have been at Disney's expense, forcing them to address labor violations. As Solomon argues, "Disney has managed to stay clear of media brickbats over sweatshops. Such avoidance is easier when a company owns many large media outlets. Both Disney and Wal-Mart remained unscathed throughout the scandal, and Wal-Mart continues to enjoy its success as the world's largest retailer, enjoying 1997 sales of $118 billion, putting it ahead of the gross domestic product of 155 nations" (WWW: The Peoples Right to Know). The disparity between multi-national corporations, like Wal-Mart and Disney and exploited sweatshop laborers are evident in the following illustrations.

In an effort to illustrate the agenda-setting role of the media in the Gifford sweatshop scandal, a quantitative analysis of newsprint stories was conducted on May 10, 1999 using the on-line Lexis-Nexus data base. Pre-Kathie Lee Gifford (KLG) refers to newsprint stories published from 4/30/93 to 4/30/96 and Post-KLG refers to stories published from 4/30/96 to 4/30/99. These dates reflect stories printed during the three years prior to the date the KLG story broke as well as the three years following the day the story broke, April 30, 1996. While the "Methods and Data Sources" section of this paper indicates a third category--those stories covered during the scandal--such a category did not prove equitable and would have been arbitrarily assigned, leading this researcher's discretion to rule its use out. The two selected categories are comparable, representing equal amounts of time, rendering comparable findings for analysis.

Nexus-Lexis subscribes to numerous mainstream newspapers, representative of the United States, though not all-inclusive. There is, however, one flaw in the results at the onset. Any Lexis-Nexus Key Word search that produces over 1,000 matches will not provide the exact number of matches. It merely indicates that there are over 1,000 stories matching the search criteria. Regardless of this flaw, in the two instances where the search exceeded 1,000, there was a substantial increase from pre-KLG sweatshop stories, still supporting the thesis though with incomplete data. Three categories were utilized in this search:

General News Stories

Government and Political News

Apparel and Textile Labor News

Three keyword searches were conducted within General News Stories and Government and Political News in accordance with the dates listed above:

Sweatshop

Sweatshop + KLG

Maquiladora

Such keyword searches brought additional factors to the fore, such as 1994-1995 coverage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as well as the El Monte, California sweat-shop that was discovered in 1995, both discussed below.

As Figure 1 illustrates, the three years leading up to the Gifford scandal produced 697 general news stories on sweatshops. Contrary to the stated thesis, sweatshop stories were covered in the media, most likely covering NAFTA and the El Monte sweatshop story. The El Monte story accounts for much of the pre-KLG data but it also contributes to the post-KLG data. In fact, the El Monte story received media attention the same week the Gifford story broke. The two brothers who ran the illegal operation were sentenced to six years in prison on April 23, 1996, as reported in the Sacramento BEE on April 30, 1996. Although the media did in fact cover such stories, be it as a result of the opportunity to report the "game of politics" associated with NAFTA or the images of women locked in an El Monte housing complex sewing Mervyn’s department store clothes for pennies a day, it was always as a result of a culminating event, as in the Gifford case. Sweatshops have existed since the cottage industry, there is a crisis worthy of coverage everyday, but the media gravitate toward the sensational, preying on twelve-year old activists, celebrities and images of child laborers.

The post-KLG period produced over 1,000 general news stories of which 268 referred to KLG. Also contributing to this pool of stories is the second Gifford sweatshop story that broke the following year. Apparently, children in a New York based sweatshop were found manufacturing Gifford’s Wal-Mart clothing line, a mere three blocks from her television studio! Her husband, a popular former professional football player rushed to the factory and passed out envelopes filled with one hundred dollar bills to the disgruntled textile laborers who protested their employer for not paying them. Although the exact number of generated stories is unknown as previously mentioned due to Nexus-Lexis constraints, Figure 1 illustrates a proliferation of post-KLG sweatshop stories.

Alternatively maquiladora stories remained the same in the pre and post-KLG periods. When maquiladora stories were controlled for KLG stories, no matches were found, therefore not included in the figure. It could be argued that since "sweatshop" was the language used by Kernhagen when he fielded interviews, the media merely repeated the language. Any actual reporting on behalf of journalists would have uncovered the fact that, indeed, the Honduran factory manufacturing Gifford’s clothing line was also referred to as a maquiladora, as are all garment factories in Latin America, in turn creating a link to NAFTA and the role of the United States. Gifford stories were void of such comprehensive analysis as the content analysis section will illustrate. In sum, general news stories on sweatshops increased after the Gifford scandal, thus supporting the agenda-setting theory.

Government and political news stories on sweatshops more than doubled after the Gifford story broke, of which 96 included coverage of Gifford, as indicated in Figure 2. It is poignant that more sweatshop news stories appeared in general news stories (Figure 1) than government and political news stories (Figure 2), providing support for the episodic framing theory. As Iyengar and Paletz suggest, episodic framing is indeed more prominent than thematic framing, leaving the government less accountable than Gifford on the sweatshop issue. Government and political news stories would be more likely to prime consumers to evaluate the government’s role in sweatshop labor instead of Giffords role.

Maquiladora news stories decreased after the Gifford story. NAFTA may be a contributing factor of the higher incidence of maquiladora stories prior to the Gifford story, it was highly controversial in the United States and Mexico, lending itself to sound-bite coverage of the game of politics as its passage was negotiated. The subsequent decrease in maquiladora stories after the Gifford story broke may be attributed to the passage of NAFTA, leaving the story void of a "game of politics" to cover, therefore contributing to its decreasing coverage.

Post-KLG total exceeds 1,000 but due to Nexus-Lexis search constraints, exact number beyond 1,000 not available

The Apparel and Textile Labor Industry and Market news also indicates an increase in post-KLG stories, though the Lexis-Nexus industry search used does not allow controlling for keywords, such as Kathie Lee Gifford. This leaves the number of actual Gifford stories in question. However, the increased coverage illustrated in Figure 3 supports the agenda-setting thesis, illustrating an increase of at least 300 post-KLG stories.

An informal content analysis of news stories that surfaced after the Gifford sweatshop scandal surfaced on April 30, 1996, indicates that the media did not address the historical context or provide comprehensive coverage of the issue. Instead, the media utilized the same priming and framing tactics that Disney used in its "Prime Time Live" coverage of Gifford. On June 10, 1999 a random selection of thirty news stories from a Lexis-Nexus Key Word Search: SWEATSHOP AND KATHIE LEE GIFFORD was selected from a pool of 268 results. The content analysis accounted for the following criteria in the thirty randomly selected news stories:

Historical Context

Comprehensive Coverage of Contemporary Issue

Thematic and Episodic Framing

In reporting the Gifford story a reporter, editor, news director or producer would be faced with the decision of covering the actors involved, providing context, presenting issue details and evaluating potential impact. The following general content analysis seeks to confirm that the media overlooked historical context of sweatshops and maquiladoras in addition to coverage of the issue details such as labor and gender. By accounting for framing techniques, an assessment of priming potential is possible, as it sheds light on how to evaluate the issue. The individual or institution being blamed or targeted in media coverage is often the individual or institution that viewers evaluate when formulating opinions.

Of the thirty stories randomly selected from the pool of 268, none of them offered historical context or comprehensive coverage of the issue. Globalization or neo-liberal policies were not mentioned once, albeit academic terms, but imperative in evaluating the issue in this author’s opinion. Furthermore, gender issues and income disparity were rarely addressed, both necessary in understanding the causes and consequences of sweatshop labor (Tiano). NAFTA was not integrated into the Gifford story, which would have shed light on labor issues between Mexico, U.S. and Canada as a result of the agreement.

In addition to the lack of comprehensive analysis, the stories lacked ample statistics, which incidentally are available directly from Charles Kernhagen. Although Kernhagen was often mentioned and quoted in the thirty articles, the comments used pertained to the people and organizations involved, not the historical context or broad societal factors, which is predominately what can be found on the NLC web site. The information is available and easily accessible, but was seldom used in the thirty stories evaluated. Ironically, Kernhagen spends much of his time with reporters educating them on the issue and providing them with such data( Kernhagen Interview, 5/18/99).