Loading...
A Comparative Analysis of Media Technology in Reporting the January 6 U.S. Capitol Attacks
Funke, Ella
Funke, Ella
Citations
Altmetric:
Soloist
Composer
Publisher
Date
2025-12-18
Additional date(s)
Abstract
This study examines how two major U.S. news outlets "The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal" framed the events of January 6, 2021, through their use of descriptive labels in the two weeks following the U.S. Capitol attack. Although both publications are regarded as reliable and relatively neutral, their coverage unfolded within a context of definitional uncertainty, where political leaders contested the characterization of the event, and news organizations exercised considerable discretion in selecting rhetorical frames. Drawing on 1,480 New York Times articles and 491 Wall Street Journal articles retrieved from the Factiva database, this analysis tracks the frequency and temporal distribution of nine labels, focusing specifically on the five most prevalent: "protest", "mob", "riot", "storm", and "attack". The findings revealed notable similarities, such as both outlets, early reliance on "protest" and "storm" and sustained usage of "mob", as well as clear differences. The Wall Street Journal adopted "riot" quickly and applied it consistently, whereas The New York Times employed a wider range of labels conveying greater severity, including more frequent use of "insurrection". A close reading of all articles containing "insurrection" further highlights differences in editorial voice: The New York Times used the term directly far more often, while The Wall Street Journal largely confined it to quotations and attributed statements. Together, these patterns illustrate how subtle rhetorical choices shaped early public interpretations of January 6, demonstrating the power of news framing in constructing historical narratives.