Covering Ethiopia: comparison of the Ethiopian news agency with Reuters

Abstract

This dissertation examines the agendas and frames used by the Ethiopian News Agency (ENA) and Reuters in their coverage of issues and actors of the May 2005 Ethiopian Elections, by employing agenda-setting and framing theories. The study applies quantitative and qualitative methods and examined fifty news stories from each news agency, and forwards five main findings: One, ENA and Reuters differed in setting agendas. While ENA focused on the legitimacy, Reuters emphasised on the killings and arrests of the electoral process. Second, ENA and Reuters differed in their motives to make some actors more salient than others. Third, ENA framed Elections processes as rightful, while Reuters framed them as disfigured. Fourth, ENA framed government parties as visionary and indomitable, and the oppositions as wrongdoers. Contrastingly, Reuters framed the oppositions as victims, and the government parties as brutal actors. And finally, by so doing, both agencies reflected their respective interests.