Contesting Frames and (De)Securitizing Schemas: Bridging the Copenhagen School's Framework and Framing Theory.

This article bridges the Copenhagen school's (CS) framework and framing theory. Framing theory focuses on how a text frames its topic and is often applied to media sources. This is important because the media often is our sole source of learning about events and issues in the world. This article argues that bridging the CS framework and framing theory allow us to understand how the media conveys these issues and with what consequences. Through the bridging, the article makes two contributions to the existing debates on securitization. First, it introduces the concept of a (de)securitizing schema as an innovative way to analyze the media as a (de)securitizing actor. Second, the article uses the concept of a (de)securitizing schema to understand how contesting frames exist in the media. Empirically, the article analyzes two Danish case studies surrounding the migration movements on the European Union's southern border by undertaking a discourse analysis of four Danish newspapers. This empirical analysis shows how the media can be a securitizing actor, capable of employing multiple contesting frames—sometimes within a single news item. In addition, the Danish case illustrates how securitizing and desecuritizing frames evolve over time and from one case study to the next. The article concludes by reflecting on what the concept of securitizing schemas and contesting frames may imply for securitization studies and other case studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]