Lesson 2.2: Media Effects & Public Attitudes

2. How framing produces hostility

Media stories about gender and sexuality are rarely neutral. The selection of words, images, and ‘experts’ determines not only what is said but who is seen as credible. ‘Anti-gender’ discourses thrive on a set of recurring strategies.

Drawing on framing theory (e.g. Lecheler & de Vreese 2019) and cultural studies perspectives (e.g. Stuart Hall’s representation theory), common strategies in ‘anti-gender’ media discourses could be categorised as:

Personalisation: Emphasising individual actors over systemic issues
Conflict framing: Highlighting outrage and division
Decontextualisation: Removing structural or historical contexts
Moralisation: Casting gender/queer issues in terms of right/wrong or virtue/malpractice

These framing techniques, as contemporary media scholars note, construct preferred interpretations that guide audiences toward emotional and moral judgments, fear, scepticism, or outrage, rather than critical understanding. Once circulated repeatedly, such frames help define who is seen as a threat and who is worthy of protection (Entman, 2010; Lecheler & de Vreese, 2019; Wodak, 2021).

Across the RESIST Project’s case studies, participants repeatedly described the media as a key amplifier of everyday hostility, with the media not simply informing audiences, but shaping environments of exclusion and fear.