From Guns to Mental Health and Accountability: Decoding Media Narratives and Audience Reactions in Public Mass Shootings

Abstract

Public mass shootings pose a critical safety challenge in the U.S. This study investigates how media framing relates to public online engagement, focusing on gun regulation, mental health, and individual and political accountability across five major TV networks: ABC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC. Using a mixed-methods approach, the research analyzes 678 news reports and 7605 audience comments. Findings reveal significant differences in audience engagement based on framing, and in key variables show audiences taking opposite positions to their news network’s narratives. ABC, CNN, and NBC’s thematic framing, highlighting systemic failures, elicits more balanced responses, whereas Fox News and MSNBC’s episodic framing, emphasizing individual or political accountability, correlates with polarized reactions. This research extends media framing theories by showing how episodic framing reduces support for systemic reforms, emphasizing personal responsibility. The study offers crucial insights for scholars, policymakers, and journalists on media’s role in shaping public discourse on gun violence.

1. Introduction

Public mass shootings are a critical public safety issue in the United States. Research funded by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), including the Gun Violence Archive (GVA, 2014–2023) and “The Violence Project” by Peterson and Densley (2024), indicates there were 193 mass shootings since 1966, excluding the 16 that occurred from 1 January to 5 September 2024 (GVA, 2024). The frequency of mass shootings in the U.S. has been a subject of scholarly interest (Mosqueda et al., 2021; Lott & Moody, 2019; Lankford & Tomek, 2018; Muschert & Carr, 2006). At the time of submission of this article, the most recent was the Apalachee High School shooting in Winder, Georgia, where a 14-year-old student, Colt Gray, killed two students and two teachers. Although the number of mass shooting victims is smaller compared to other gun violence incidents in general, the severity and frequency of mass shootings have been on the rise, intensifying interest in prevention strategies (NIJ et al., 2023).

Understanding the relationship between online audience response about news reports on mass shootings and critical issues like mental health, gun regulation, and accountability, both individual and political, is essential for public discourse on prevention. The DOJ’s National Institute of Justice decade report (2023) highlights that online news platforms are crucial areas for future research as debates on prevention strategies continue to grow. Thus, this study is of vital importance as it aims to understand how different framing narratives in U.S. broadcast (ABC News and NBC News) and cable news (CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC) media coverage of mass shootings impact online audience engagement. The interest is examined in the context of debates surrounding mental health, gun regulation, and accountability. By examining the construction of these frame narratives and the subsequent reactions from online audiences, this research contributes to a broader understanding of the extent of media influence (or lack of influence) on public sentiment and policy advocacy.

Existing scholarship (Lindgren et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2021; D’Angelo, 2017; Cacciatore et al., 2016; Entman, 1993; and others) explored media framing and its impact on public opinion, yet a gap remains in understanding how gun debate issue, mental health issue, individual and accountability issue frames relate to audiences’ online engagement with the news. This study addresses this gap by focusing on the interaction between media framing and online audience responses related to accountability in mass shooting coverage, offering fresh insights with broader policy implications.

Using a mixed-methods approach, including content analysis of 678 news reports and sentiment analysis of 7605 audience comments across multiple platforms, we explore how media narratives and audience sentiments are related or different, and what these relationships reveal about U.S. online news consumption regarding gun violence debates. This research aims to illuminate the complex dynamics between media narratives and public online engagements, with findings relevant to scholars, policymakers, journalists, and others interested in the power of media to influence public opinion and the unique role audiences play in this relationship.

2. News Framing and Audience Response to News

Research in frame analysis, pioneered by theorists such as Goffman (1974) and Tuchman (1978), established a robust framework for understanding how media constructs and prioritizes news narratives and how those emphases influence audiences and public discourse (Gitlin, 1980; Entman, 1993; Cacciatore et al., 2016; D’Angelo, 2017). Entman (1993) argues that framing involves emphasizing selected aspects of a news story, shaping the issue’s salience and audience’s interpretations. This selection process impacts not only how the audience might think about the news, but also the broader consumption, discussion, and integration of news into policy and public discourse.

Equivalency framing, for instance, reveals that negatively framed media stories are often perceived as less credible than positively framed ones, regardless of factual accuracy (Lindgren et al., 2022; Cacciatore et al., 2016; Levin, 1987). Foundational studies such as those by Price and Tewksbury (1997) demonstrate that different news frames evoke distinct cognitive and emotional responses, with framing elements playing a crucial role in shaping audience perceptions (de Vreese, 2004). This is further supported by research showing that media frames significantly influence how audiences process and understand information (Valkenburg et al., 1999; Shah et al., 2004; Jebril et al., 2013).

The attitudinal effects of framing are similarly well-documented, with studies highlighting the correlation between story framing and audience attitudes toward policy issues (Bos et al., 2016; Nisbet et al., 2013; Boukes & Boomgaarden, 2015; Chong & Druckman, 2007). Moreover, framing has been shown to significantly impact emotional reactions (Gross, 2008; Nabi, 2003; Crigler & Just, 2012; Druckman & McDermott, 2008), cognitive processing (Aarøe, 2011), and even behavioral responses (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997).

Given the demonstrated impact of framing on audience attitudes and emotions, understanding the framing mechanisms in media coverage of mass shootings, particularly in the context of gun regulation, mental health debates, and individual versus political accountability, is critical. Despite the sensitive nature of mass shootings and their societal impact, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding how these framing strategies specifically influence audience engagement, especially as reflected in online comments and reactions. This study seeks to address this gap by exploring the relationship between media framing, audience sentiment, and engagement with news coverage of mass shootings online.

3. Mass Shootings, Gun and Mental Health Debates, and Accountability

The literature on media coverage of mass shootings in the United States has primarily studied the framing of gun control and mental health debates, often reflecting ideological biases (Zhang et al., 2023; Emelu, 2023a, 2023b). However, a focused understanding of the relationship between television framing and online audience engagement needs scholarly attention. This review aims to synthesize existing research across framing narratives of the gun debate and the mental health debate, emphasizing how these aspects intersect with accountability and public responses. It also seeks to underscore the importance of addressing the gaps in the gun debate, mental health debate, and accountability narratives in online engagements of news frames.

4. Ideological Leanings in Framing Narratives in Media Coverage of Mass Shootings

Beyond the ideological biases represented in framing gun control and mental health debates, legacy media outlets are increasingly polarized, contributing to a fiercely competitive cultural landscape in the U.S. (Zhang et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2019; Stroud, 2011). Although framing narratives are platform-dependent (Emelu, 2023a), traditional media and social media mutually influence each other (Zhang et al., 2023). Studies show that media monitor each other, and the framing of their stories tends to respond to each other (Zhang et al., 2023). This interaction results in a competitive framing environment where media outlets respond to each other’s content as counter-narratives, amplifying polarization (Chong & Druckman, 2007; Iyengar, 1996; Scheufele, 1999; Matthes & Schemer, 2012). Despite extensive research on how framing shapes public opinion, there needs to be more exploration of how these narratives specifically impact audiences’ response to mass shootings reports online. There is a scarcity of evidence that relates online news engagements and sentiments with the specific framing narratives of media outlets.

Frames are competitive in a partisan media environment (Chong & Druckman, 2007). This competitive nature of frames can significantly influence public opinion, with both sides advancing positions. On issues where audiences already hold strong views, research suggests they are resistant to counter-framing (Matthes & Schemer, 2012). However, existing studies primarily focus on public opinion shifts and not on how these framing dynamics translate into specific audience reactions to the news.

Furthermore, the ideological narratives are also reflected in the frame analysis methodologies’ findings. Studies on framing of mass shootings often focus on emphasis framing (Walter & Ophir, 2019; Gitlin, 1980), including episodic and thematic framings. Studies suggest that episodic framing tends to blame individuals, while thematic framing tends to blame governments and societies (Guo et al., 2021). Episodic frames are prominent in stimulating emotional responses and are essential for public action. According to Guo et al. (2021), this framing style can increase issue salience among conservatives. The study found that mainstream media’s episodic framing of gun violence significantly heightened its importance for conservative-leaning audiences. However, when conservative-leaning audiences were exposed to episodic framing from “like-minded media”, they perceived the issue as less important.

Conversely, thematic framing had little impact on any group. For liberal-leaning audiences, the study found that mainstream media framing did not significantly affect their perception. Despite these insights, there remains a lack of research on how these framing strategies specifically impact online engagements, particularly in the context of gun debates, mental health, individual and political accountability issues following mass shootings.

Moreover, media coverage tends to focus on mass shootings rather than on other forms of gun violence, even though mass shootings comprise less than 0.5% of all gun-related incidents in the U.S. (McGinty et al., 2016). While studies show that most sampled Democrats consider gun violence a significant issue, less than one-third of Republicans agree (Dan, 2018). Post-shooting media frames often shift towards assigning responsibility to lawmakers, a thematic frame (Jashinsky et al., 2017). It is worth considering how the thematic frame methodologies that bring awareness to a broader contextual debate might relate to the level of audiences’ engagement in issues of mass shooting stories online. Our study, which draws from thematic frame and episodic frame approaches, addresses this concern.

5. The Gun and Mental Debates and Media Framing

Mass shootings are often misunderstood in terms of their frequency and causes. Although approximately 36 of the deadliest mass shootings in the United States since 1903 happened in the last decade (Peterson & Densley, 2024), public mass shootings accounted for approximately 0.5% of homicides in 2019 and about 1.3% of all shootings in the USA from January 2014 to December 2023, according to the DOJ sponsored research, namely the Gun Violence Archive (GVA, 2014–2023) and Peterson and Densley (2024). According to this DOJ research, mass shooting victims constitute less than 0.03% of all gun-related fatalities. Despite these statistics, the public often associates these events with a high rate of firearm homicides. This misperception can lead to misplaced policy recommendations, as people often attribute mass shootings to mental illness. Despite only 4% of violent acts in the U.S. being committed by individuals with mental illnesses (Metzel & MacLeish, 2015), some media coverage disproportionately focuses on mental health as a primary cause. Many media narratives overlook other critical factors, including socioeconomic status, access to firearms, and cultural influences (Peterson & Densley, 2022).

The media’s portrayal of the gun debate in mass shooting coverage often reflects ideological leanings. Conservative media typically frame these incidents as issues of individual responsibility, attributing them to “deranged” individuals, which deflects calls for stricter gun regulation (Philpott-Jones, 2018). This narrative aligns with the belief held by many right-leaning advocates that more guns lead to greater safety—a view supported by 71% of conservative gun owners (PEW, 2017). Conversely, liberal media outlets focus on systemic issues such as firearm accessibility and advocating for stricter regulations (Philpott-Jones, 2018). These contrasting framing influence public policy preferences, with Democrats more likely to attribute mass shootings to systemic factors like inadequate gun control laws and Republicans to individual factors like mental illness (Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2011).

While mental health is an important factor, it is rarely the sole or primary cause of mass shootings (NIJ et al., 2023). Research suggests that a “nontrivial” minority of high-profile mass shooters exhibit symptoms of mental health issues, such as depression, delusion, and paranoia (Metzel et al., 2021). However, many mass shooters do not have diagnosed mental disorders and meticulously plan their attacks (Fox & DeLateur, 2014; Rocque & Duwe, 2018). What is known from NIJ sponsored research is that a significant majority of individuals who committed mass shootings had a previous criminal record (64.5%) and a history of violence (62.8%), with 27.9% specifically involving domestic violence. Additionally, 28.5% of these individuals had a military background (NIJ et al., 2023; Peterson, 2021). Therefore, it is crucial to interpret these findings carefully, as most mass shooters end up dead (Peterson, 2021), leaving their mental state before the incident unclear.

Additionally, research highlights other contributing factors, including gender, race, socioeconomic status, personal relationships, and the significance of the location where the shooting occurs (Metzel et al., 2021). The relationship between mental health and mass shootings is complex and influenced by multiple factors (NIJ et al., 2023). However, evidence showing the non-causal relationship between mental illness and violence is often overlooked in gun control policy debates (McReynolds & Wasserman, 2008; Skeem & Monahan, 2011; Varsheny et al., 2016; Walters & Crawford, 2014; Witt et al., 2013).

Framing mass shootings as primarily a mental health issue has several problematic consequences. It increases public fear and stigmatization of individuals with mental illnesses, often leading to support for restrictive policies targeting this group (Garland, 2008; Schildkraut et al., 2015). McGinty et al. (2013) found that news coverage framing mental health as a cause of mass shootings led to 36% of respondents not wanting to work closely with individuals with mental illness, 40% believing that people with mental illnesses are more dangerous than the general public, and 71% supporting gun restrictions for them. Such framing can also discourage individuals from seeking mental health support (Yelderman et al., 2019). However, like the case of gun debate narratives, the current literature does not sufficiently explore how these framing effects relate to public online engagement of the news narratives in relation to mental health debates, a critical gap that this study also seeks to address.

6. Accountability and Audience Engagement

Debates on gun control and mental health often overshadow narratives of accountability in mass shooting coverage as well. This gap can result in a need for more public discourse on systemic accountability, which is essential for meaningful policy change. Our study aims to address this gap by examining how media framing of accountability relates to online engagement given the role of motivated reasoning in shaping audience responses. Moreover, understanding how accountability is framed and its impact on audience engagement is crucial for fostering informed public discourse—a dimension insufficiently covered in existing literature.

7. Summary of Review

As we show in the reviewed literature, the significant impact of media framing, including but not limited to episodic and thematic framing, on audience perceptions, attitudes, and emotions is well documented. Yet scholarship reveals a notable gap in understanding how these frames directly impact online audience engagement, mainly through comments in response to news coverage. While existing research highlights the ideological biases in framing narratives around gun regulation and mental health in mass shooting coverage, it falls short of exploring how these frames relate to online audience reactions and engagement, especially concerning mental health, gun regulation, and accountability issues. The literature suggests that ideological frames in media coverage contribute to polarization but lacks studies on their specific association with online audience responses.

In addition, the prevalent focus on gun regulation and mental health debates often overshadows discussions of other accountability issues in mass shooting coverage. This leaves the relationship between the framing of accountability issues—such as individual and political—and online audience sentiment and engagement unexplored. This gap highlights the urgent need for further research to understand how media frames influence audience reactions in digital spaces. Such research is crucial for better appreciation of the U.S. public discourse and engagement with online mass shooting news.

Therefore, this study is relevant as it addresses these gaps by examining the correlation between media framing and audience engagement and sentiments on gun regulation, mental health, and mass shooting accountability issues. The insights are relevant to public discourse and policy advocacy.

8. Research Questions and Hypotheses

• RQ1: What are the dominant framing narratives regarding the gun debate, mental health debate, and accountability in U.S. cable and broadcast television coverage of mass shootings?
• Hypothesis 1. There is a positive association between frame narratives that support stricter gun regulations and audience sentiments favoring stricter gun regulation.
• Hypothesis 2. Frame narratives that highlight mental health as the primary factor in mass shootings generates more positive sentiments toward prioritizing mental health accountability.
• Hypothesis 3. Frame narratives that highlight mental health as the primary factor in mass shootings generates more negative sentiments toward stricter gun regulations.
• Hypothesis 4. Frame narratives that emphasize individual accountability in mass shootings generates negative audience sentiments toward political accountability.

9. Materials, Method, and Procedure

Data Selection and Collection

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)-funded research, specifically the Gun Violence Archive (GVA, 2014–2023) and Peterson and Densley (2024) from “The Violence Project” database of mass shootings in the United States, document 193 mass shootings in the United States since 1966. Of these, we sampled ten of the deadliest focusing on those with the highest fatality rates determined by 10 or more victims. We randomly selected one—The First Baptist Church shooting in Sutherland Springs, 5 November 2017, with 26 casualties. While this incident occurred in a place of worship, our study’s emphasis is on public mass shootings that met the selection criteria, rather than the specific location.

Similarly, a random selection of five of the top ten prominent U.S. cable and broadcast news networks in 2023 (Stoll, 2024; Maglio, 2023; National Media Spots, n.d.; YouGov, n.d.) resulted in ABC, CNN, Fox News, NBC, and MSNBC being identified. Among these, ABC and NBC are broadcast networks, while CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are cable networks. We collected 678 news reports spanning one week from these networks, comprising all articles, tweets, and YouTube videos, with varying distributions: ABC—202 reports (33,495 words); CNN—136 reports (75,462 words); Fox News—92 reports (6493 words); MSNBC—62 reports (20,454 words); and NBC—186 reports (36,302 words). The decision to focus on online content from news network websites, social media platforms, and YouTube aimed to track audience responses online. Moreover, determining audience response sentiments would not have been possible in the traditional broadcast viewership on television. In addition, the study builds on previous research (Emelu, 2023a, 2023b) which highlighted the usefulness of analyzing mass shooting coverage on digital, online platforms for understanding audience responses.

All news reports related to the Sutherland Springs mass shooting within the initial week following the incident were selected for detailed analysis. This targeted approach facilitated a comprehensive exploration of media framing during a crucial period of audience engagement, aligning with existing research indicating heightened media and audience interaction with mass shooting narratives during the selected timeframe (Dahmen et al., 2018; Holody & Daniel, 2017).

Additionally, all audience online comments, tweets, or retweets regarding the television networks’ online news reports from 5 November 2017 (the date of the mass shooting) to 28 July 2024, totaling 43,908 responses, were carefully compiled. Notably, no comments were present on the websites of these networks as they were not publicly accessible for audience comments. However, comments, posts, tweets, and retweets with comments were discovered on their X and YouTube accounts and considered part of the audience responses to the news reports. ABC News received 9818 comments, CNN garnered 14,097, Fox News accumulated 12,906, MSNBC gathered 2208, and NBC attracted 4879 comments. Upon closer examination, we discovered discrepancies between the recorded and actual number of comments on the posts. Many initial counts included spam, likely bot-generated or promotional. We manually filtered and organized the genuine comments, resulting in the following numbers: ABC News (1273), CNN (863), Fox News (3409), MSNBC (454), and NBC (1606). The total number of valid comments was 7605.

Due to ethical and policy restrictions on data collection from online platforms (YouTube, X, and the websites hosting the comments), the researchers could not obtain or determine the demographic data of individual comments. Consequently, we chose not to categorize comments by age, sex, or gender. Instead, we focused solely on their content, regardless of potential demographic differences. We acknowledge that this approach may introduce multicollinearity into the analysis. However, this limitation does not diminish the sample’s validity as a representative subset of online comments and population.

In terms of the word count for the news reports, a random sample taken from the Fox News reports, amounting to 6493 words, underwent comprehensive review by the researchers. Non-essential information like dates, promotional text, and other non-news elements was meticulously eliminated, resulting in 5797 words of relevant content. This sample served as the basis for estimating the total number of pertinent words across the entire collection, which added up to 172,206 words. This estimate provided a range of 152,443 to 155,147 relevant words, with a 95% confidence interval. Through this process, we refined the content to focus solely on news-related material. Upon deliberation, we opted to consider the mean value within the range as the approximate word count for the news reports, settling on 153,795 words of news coverage from all five news networks.

As the audience online comments and tweets lacked extraneous content not reflective of audience responses, the total word count for all audience responses was assumed to remain unchanged.

10. Data Coding and Analysis

A grounded approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Heath & Cowley, 2004) was used to code and analyze the news report data. We also used thematic analysis to confirm what we found. This mixed method approach helped us agree on common dominant themes from the data.

Two professors with diverse backgrounds conducted the coding: one is a first-generation U.S. citizen educated in Africa, Europe, and the United States, and the other is a rhetorician from Texas who has lived in Ohio for the past three decades. This diversity enriched the analysis.

We read the reports multiple times to understand the stories, documenting initial thoughts and patterns while comparing notes. During open coding, we analyzed sampled reports from five networks to identify categories and themes. In the axial coding process, we expanded the data with the remaining news reports, constantly comparing notes until reaching data saturation and theory theme development.

After grounded coding, thematic analysis was performed to confirm identified themes and narratives, focusing on emphasis framing within thematic frame devices. The identified themes were organized into a coherent narrative to address the research questions. We reviewed and agreed on the narrative themes, reaching a consensus, as intercoder reliability was not required in the grounded approach and at this stage of our inquiry.

10.1. Sentiment Analysis

After coding and analyzing the news reports, we examined the sentiments of 7605 audience comments. As part of their research training, we trained 40 undergraduate students to determine the sentiments of each post, including jokes and metaphors. Our initial attempts to use automated sentiment analysis tools such as NVIVO software and third-party AI tools, such as Gianmarco Alberti’s “Thematic and Sentiment Analysis Assistant” AI plugin and Sushant Pai’s “Sentiment Analysis GPT”, yielded undesirable accuracy ratios. These tools (and others) failed to recognize jokes, metaphors, slang, and other elements that only trained readers could decode. After several failed attempts, we decided to determine the sentiments manually.

We agreed on a two-step process: first, train students to conduct the analysis, and then have the two researchers, who are communication professors, independently code comments, and thereafter review the students’ analyses until they reach an agreement on each comment’s sentiment. Thus, a group of 40 students, working in dyads and triads, coded the data using methods taught in class. Detailed instructions for training and sentiment analysis are provided in Supplementary Materials for replicability. After the students completed their analysis, the researchers independently reviewed and analyzed the comments, categorizing them accordingly.

Comments were classified as positive (1), negative (−1), or neutral (0) based on accountability criteria derived from the narrative framing of each television network. These criteria included Individual or Shooter Accountability, Stricter Gun Control or Regulation (Legislative), Mental Health Issues, and Political Accountability. Some other accountability issues identified were not included in this research as they form part of another research project. For each network, we compared audience textual responses with the network’s story framing to assess the extent of positive, negative, or neutral reactions to each accountability issue. This process provided quantitative insights into audience responses to the four framing narratives identified in the news reports.

For intercoder reliability, a random sample of 200 out of 7605 comments was analyzed, yielding 183 agreements. Intercoder reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa, resulting in a value of 0.83, indicating strong agreement between the two coders who also reviewed the students’ codes and incorporated the agreed sentiments in theirs.

10.2. Statistical Analysis

To test the hypotheses and determine the relationship between framing narratives and audience sentiment, we employed correlation analysis. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the strength and direction of the relationship between the framing of issues (gun control, mental health, individual accountability, and political accountability) and audience sentiment (positive, negative, neutral). This statistical method allowed us to quantitatively evaluate how different frames are associated with audience reactions, providing a robust basis for understanding media influence (or lack thereof) on audience perception and engagement in the context of mass shootings.

11. Results

RQ1 seeks to understand the dominant framing narratives regarding the gun debate, mental health debate, individual and political accountability in U.S. cable and broadcast television coverage of mass shootings. The result show varied narratives between gun debate, mental health, individual and political accountability issues.

12. Gun Debate

Gun debate narratives in the news reports from ABC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC make up about 11.63% of the total word volume in the sampled platform publications, n = 153,795 words. The data reveal four distinct perspectives on the gun debate issue, each with its unique frame narrative. (1) There is the narrative of widespread and systemic gun violence. We call this a narrative about culture, a debate related to a nationwide concern prominent in ABC News reports. (2) The narrative of systemic issues with gun accessibility is prominent on CNN and NBC News. (3) There is a narrative of skepticism over the effectiveness of gun control (Fox News). (4) Finally, there is the failure of political leadership in effective gun regulation policy (MSNBC).

Overall, we identified a central narrative arc in the framing, which we call “conflict framing”. In conflict framing, the narrative takes the form of either–or propositions that underline the story structure. Figure 1 maps the relationships, and the following description provide details of the analyses of the gun debate issue themes.

12.1. Widespread and Systemic Gun Violence: ABC News Framing (Culture)

ABC News defines the gun debate issue as a widespread and systemic problem, highlighting flaws that allow such tragedies to occur. The repetitive epithets “Gun Violence in America” and “mass shooting at church”, which headlines several of their reports, underscore the broader issue of gun violence in the country. It is framed as a cultural problem; no place, including the church, is safe. Naming the concept of gun violence and mass shootings without differentiations associates one and the other and relates the nature of the event to a more frequent phenomenon. “It seems no corner of America is safe from the threat of gun violence”. Thus, the problem is framed as a national crisis, not a localized debate about the gunman or simply the failure of the Air Force to properly identify the rationale for the shooter’s discharge from service. It paints a picture of a problem with the culture, depicting it as real and pervasive. “Is it the pervasiveness of guns or something in the culture?” sets the problem as a conflict narrative—local versus national, gun access versus gun control, and Democrats versus Republicans.

Also, ABC News diagnoses the cause of gun violence culture as failures in legislative action and the enforcement of existing laws—a failure that draws collective outrage as the problem is depicted as widespread. “Outrage grows over Texas massacre suspect’s ability to buy weapons”. However, a failure exemplified in the military reporting system’s flaws is emblematic of a broader problem. “Authorities said the alleged gunman, Devin Patrick Kelley, was wrongly able to purchase firearms after the Air Force failed to report his domestic violence court-martial to an FBI database”.

ABC News makes strong moral judgments about the urgency and responsibility to implement effective gun control measures. “But how many more do we bury before we pass a comprehensive gun control law?” This call is framed as a moral, collective imperative, demanding immediate action and accountability from the religious-minded and from others: “Prayers, heartbreak, and calls for gun control were among the responses Sunday to America’s latest mass shooting”.

The narrative emphasizes comprehensive gun control, stringent background checks, vetting processes for gun buyers, and legislative action as remedies. ABC News notes: “Democrats have suggested stricter gun control laws as part of the solution”.

12.2. Systemic Problems with Gun Accessibility: CNN Framing

CNN defines the problem as a systemic problem related to gun accessibility. “Texas church gunman raised many red flags … how he was able to get a gun”. This emphasis on systemic issues underscores the need for comprehensive reforms to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged.

The network’s diagnosis of the cause of failure in oversight over gun access emphasizes failures in the background check systems and inadequate reporting of criminal and mental health records. They report that the “Air Force failed to relay info that could have stopped firearm sale to gunman”. Also, “The failure to relay the information prevented the entry of his conviction into the federal database that must be checked before someone is able to purchase a firearm”.

CNN makes moral judgments about the urgency and moral responsibility to implement effective gun regulation measures. They quote Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, “My heart breaks for Sutherland Springs … The terrifying fact is that no one is safe so long as Congress chooses to do absolutely nothing in the face of this epidemic”. Further, “Ask yourself—how can you claim that you respect human life while choosing fealty to weapons-makers over support for measures favored by the vast majority of your constituents”. These quotes critique lawmakers who prioritize gun rights over public safety, framing it as a moral failing.

Suggesting remedies, CNN emphasizes the necessity of legislative reforms and improvements in reporting systems to address gun access and violence. “Flake, Heinrich to introduce bill to close gun loophole … legislation that will make it a law for the military to report misdemeanors of domestic violence to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System”. They highlight a bipartisan remedy supported by Congress and by professional bodies in mental health. “The American Psychological Association recommends prohibiting firearms for high-risk groups, such as domestic violence offenders or persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crime”. The depiction suggests the conflict is reaching a bipartisan and professional resolution.

12.3. Systemic Problems with Gun Accessibility: NBC News Framing

Similarly to CNN, NBC News defines the problem by emphasizing systemic failures that allow dangerous individuals to access firearms. The repeated question—”Did The Texas Church Shooter Devin Patrick Kelley Get His Gun Legally?”—primes the problem. “The alleged shooter killed 26 people in the worst mass murder in modern Texas history with a semiautomatic rifle that, by law, he should not have been allowed to buy”.

Unlike CNN, NBC News frequently diagnoses the cause of the problem as stemming from legislative loopholes and failures in enforcement. “Texas Shooting Exposes Gaps in Background Checks”, and “The U.S. Air Force confirmed Sunday that Devin P. Kelley, a former member of the USAF, was court-martialed in 2012 for assaulting his spouse and child and later discharged for bad conduct”.

The news network makes strong moral judgments by criticizing political leaders for inaction and inconsistency regarding gun control. “Trump called the Sutherland Springs, Texas church shooting a mental health issue while saying it was ‘too soon’ to talk about guns”. Also, “Gun control advocates slammed Trump as a ‘hypocrite’, after he called the mass shooting in Texas over the weekend ‘a mental health problem’”. This argument points out perceived hypocrisy in the president’s stance on gun regulation.

NBC News suggests comprehensive gun reform and stricter enforcement of existing laws as necessary remedies to address gun violence. Fact-checking the claim that more guns in the hands of the “good guy”, (Fox News), NBC News emphasizes: “No, More Guns Won’t Prevent Mass Shootings”.

12.4. Skepticism over the Effectiveness of Gun Control: Fox News Framing (Individual Accountability)

Fox News frames the gun debate with a skeptical emphasis on the ineffectiveness of gun control, instead emphasizing the need for armed protection. They observe: “Officials: Texas gunman did not have license to carry”. This quote and similar stories emphasize the claim that existing gun control measures are sufficient and that the problem is individual policy violations. The doubtful tone is evident in the emphasis: “Have Americans grown numb to gun control debate?” This skepticism calls for a critical evaluation of current measures and individual accountability.

The network’s reports make moral judgments by criticizing gun regulation advocates and suggesting that such measures are often politically motivated, driven by celebrities and public figures, and ineffective. “Celebrities have taken to social media to speak out in favor of gun control following a deadly mass shooting at a Texas church”, including a controversial figure: “Comedian Chelsea Handler was also among the first to react to the incident, blaming Republicans”.

Fox News suggests remedies focusing on enhancing armed security and individual preparedness rather than implementing stricter gun control laws. “Should churches have armed security?” with the response “New calls for armed security in light of Texas shooting”. They emphasize that the “Texas church shooting not the first time a good guy with gun takes down mass shooter”.

12.5. Failure of Political Leadership in Gun Regulation: MSNBC Framing (Political Accountability)

MSNBC frequently defines the problem by emphasizing failures to adopt stricter gun regulation and holding political leaders accountable for inaction in advancing gun regulation. “Following mass shooting, Trump says this ‘isn’t a guns situation’”. This narrative frames the problem as a political conflict and then challenges the inconsistency of leaders who deny the role of guns in mass shootings. Emphasizing their critique of Trump’s response to this shooting, they report: “Trump’s choice to serve as the Pentagon’s top health official believes Americans’ access to assault rifles is ‘insane’”.

The television network often diagnoses the cause of objections to gun regulation as the result of inadequate legislation, political leadership that enables gun access, and existing loopholes that allow dangerous individuals to access firearms. They state: “Trump law helps mentally ill get guns”. Terming the shooter(s) as “dangerous” relates to the necessity for strictest gun regulation, framing a lack of political action as irresponsible.

Thus, the network makes strong moral judgments by critiquing political leaders for their inaction and inconsistent policies regarding gun control. “Whether the president understands this or not, Donald Trump has taken steps to make matters worse regarding mental health and guns”. They continue: “If the president did believe that the mental health of the killer was the real issue here, then somebody should probably ask the president why one of the very first things he signed as president … was to make it easier for people who have been adjudicated mentally ill to obtain firearms”.

MSNBC suggests comprehensive gun reform and increased accountability for political leaders as necessary remedies to address gun violence, such as “Debating the Second Amendment and gun reform” and “Can Texas be a catalyst for change in reform?”

13. Mental Health Debate

Mental health debate issue-based framing narratives in news reports from ABC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC make up about 2.81% of the total word volume in the sampled platform publications (n = 153,795 words). The data reveal four distinct perspectives on the mental health debate issue, each with its unique frame narrative: (1) Presidential attribution of gun violence to mental health: This critique of a reductive narrative is prominent in ABC News reports and NBC, also found, though less emphatically, in CNN and MSNBC. (2) Competing narratives of blame attribution (mental health vs. gun control): This conflict narrative is prominent on CNN and NBC News. (3) Narrative of psychologism and individualism: This perspective is primarily found in Fox News. (4) Legislative, policy, and political enabling: This narrative, which emphasizes the role of legislation, policy, and political actions in addressing mental health issues, is evident in MSNBC reports.

Overall, we identified two central narrative trajectories in the networks’ framing of the mental health debate: a critique of reductionism and scapegoating mental health and individualistic psychologism. Figure 2 maps the relationships, and the following narratives provide details of the analyses of the mental health debate theme.

13.1. Presidential Attribution of Gun Violence to Mental Health: ABC News Framing

ABC News’ mental health debate issue-based framing emphasizes President Trump’s attribution of gun violence to mental health, a claim the network depicts as Trump’s reductive argument. This framing is highlighted by quotes such as “President Trump spoke about the shooting from Japan, calling the suspect a ‘deranged individual’ and saying, ‘this isn’t a guns situation’”. ABC News frequently uses quotes from Trump such as “mental health problem”, “deranged individual”, and “this isn’t a guns situation” to reinforce the narrative that the President attributes the root cause of the violence solely to the mental health problem. For instance, “The president on an overseas trip called it an ‘act of evil’ and a ‘mental health problem’”. This repetitive focus frames the problem as one of scapegoating mental health and ignoring other issues related to gun legislation.

The problem is defined within a diagnostic and morally evaluative context, suggesting that the President views the primary cause of such violent acts as untreated or inadequately managed mental health issues. Another example of this framing is in the coverage where President Trump’s stance is prominently featured. According to Trump, “This isn’t a guns situation… mental health is your problem here”. ABC contrasts Trump’s reductive view with theirs: “The suspect had a history of domestic violence and mental health issues”, which points to a specific individual’s background in both domestic violence and mental health as contributing factors. This side-by-side placement of domestic violence and mental health problems conflicts with the President’s attribution, which ABC sees as a form of scapegoating, or blaming, mental health for the issue. The moral judgment is that scapegoating mental health is a Republican diversion from arguments in favor or more regulation of gun access. “If Republicans do not think more regulations around firearms would help, then what would? A big investment in mental health?”

13.2. Competing Narratives of Blame Attribution: CNN Framing

CNN’s mental health debate framing presents a competing narrative of blame attribution among the President, mental health institutions, behavioral health, and policy. The network defines the problem as involving a history of domestic violence, gun accessibility, and mental health issues and Trump’s blame attribution versus others debate. It frequently features President Trump’s emphasis on mental health as the primary cause, juxtaposed with discussions about domestic violence and gun regulation. Repeated phrases such as “mental health problem”, “not an issue with gun laws”, and “this isn’t a guns situation” underscore this narrative.

Similarly, the network contrasts this view with expert opinions, stating that “Mass shootings in America are a serious problem—and these 9 charts show just why … calling gun violence a mental health issue is to scapegoat and stigmatize people with mental illness”. This framing sets up a conflict between those who want to include discussions of three related factors: mental health, other demographic features frequently observed in mass shooters, and additional gun access regulations which include these other factors, and those who blame mental health as a way of diverting attention from potential gun regulations.

The network highlights the debate within a diagnostic and morally evaluative context, pointing out inadequacies in both the mental health system and political reluctance to address broader issues. For example, they contrast the President’s rhetoric, noting “Trump has called for ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants from Muslim-majority countries in response to terrorist incidents. But he has resisted any action on gun laws in response to the deadly mass shootings that have occurred during his time in office”. This framing illustrates the inconsistency in policy responses and suggests that focusing solely on mental health without addressing domestic violence, background checks, and gun laws is insufficient.

CNN implies a moral judgment that using mental health as a scapegoat to avoid discussing systemic lapses in gun regulation is inadequate and harmful. The network critiques this approach, suggesting that comprehensive solutions should include improvements in mental health care, records of domestic violence, and sensible gun control measures. For instance, “Many mental health researchers say it takes fixing gun laws—not the mental health system—to end violence”. The above statement indicates the network’s emphasis that addressing mental health alone is insufficient without also implementing gun control reforms.

The narrative emphasizes the need for balanced policy measures. Quoting research, “Instead of policies that restrict gun access based solely on mental illness diagnoses or because a person has made contact with the judicial system or health care agencies due to mental illness, the American Psychological Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and other advocacy groups have called for gun access criteria based on more subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior. Those indicators—such as having past or pending violent misdemeanor convictions or charges, domestic violence restraining orders, or multiple DUI convictions”.

CNN suggests that effective solutions require legislative action to improve mental health care and enact stricter gun control laws. For example, “What stops the mentally ill from buying guns? So exactly how are mental health and gun violence intertwined, and what is needed to end the violence?” highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to policy reform.

13.3. Narrative of Psychologism and Individualism: Fox News Framing

Fox News’ framing of the mental health debate issue emphasizes the psychological factors and mental states of perpetrators. The network defines the problem as part of a broader issue involving psychological well-being, suggesting that understanding the psychological background of individual perpetrators is crucial to preventing mass shootings.

Statements like “Mass murders are becoming all too common in America” point to a broader nature of the issues. The network implies that the failure to focus on the psychological aspects of these crimes, rather than on gun control, is problematic. This framing portrays the issue as a national crisis whose solution requires deeper psychological insight into the causes of violent behavior per individual. This perspective is highlighted in discussions such as “The psychology behind mass shootings”, where Fox News explores the mental and emotional states that lead individuals to commit such acts. Terms like “psychology”, “mass murders”, and “mental state” are frequently used to frame the issue within a psychological context.

Fox News’ framing makes a moral judgment that there is a need for deeper psychological insights and interventions to prevent mass shootings. The network suggests that understanding the mental health issues and psychological factors that lead to such acts of violence is essential for effective prevention. For example, the elaborate discussion “The psychology behind mass shootings” highlights the importance of addressing mental health problems through psychological assessments and targeted mental health support. The network’s solution implies that effectively handling individuals with psychological and mental health issues prevents U.S. mass shootings.

13.4. Legislative, Policy, and Political Enabling: MSNBC Framing

MSNBC’s mental health issue-based framing centers on enabling people with mental health issues to access guns, an enabling that comes from legislative, policy, and political provisions. The network defines the problem in political terms: “Trump law helps mentally ill get guns”. Gun law is tied to Trump, and Trump is tied to the accessibility of guns for people with mental health issues. The network emphasizes President Trump’s statements and actions, suggesting that legislative decisions have significant implications for public safety. This framing is evident in quotes like, “Trump weighs in on Texas and says it’s a ‘mental health problem’ not a ‘guns situation’”. MSNBC uses phrases such as “mental health problem”, “political issue”, and “legislative shortcomings” to frame the discussion within a policy context. These juxtapositions seem designed to illustrate inconsistencies between Trump’s rhetoric and his political actions.

The network is similar to ABC News, NBC, and CNN in their framing critiques of the President’s attribution of gun violence to mental health. Nevertheless, MSNBC defines the problem within a politically diagnostic and morally evaluative context, pointing out that legislative and policy shortcomings from “the Republican president” exacerbate mental health issues and fail to control gun access effectively. Thus, the problem is not just the President but the Republican president’s making health matters (in terms of gun access) worse.

MSNBC’s framing makes a moral judgment that using mental health as a political deflection from gun regulation is insufficient and misleading. The network critiques the administration’s health policies and their role in enabling violence. “At a certain level, this brings us to a very familiar place: opponents of new gun reforms respond to mass shootings by pointing to mental health, while proponents of new gun reforms point out that every country has people who suffer from mental illness, but the United States is unique in its experiences with gun violence”.

The network suggests that effective solutions require legislative action to improve mental health care and enact strict gun control laws. For example, MSNBC claims “Trump has endorsed repealing the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits, which includes mental health treatments. The Republican President has also supported deep cuts to Medicaid, which provides mental health treatments to many low-income Americans”, highlighting what MSNBC depicts as the broader implications of policy decisions on mental health and public safety.

13.5. Competing Narratives of Blame Attribution: NBC News Framing

NBC News frames mental health issues in the case of the Texas church shooting by emphasizing President Trump’s consistent attribution of the incident to mental health problems. The network frequently highlights Trump’s statements that blame mental health issues for the violence, using repeated phrases such as “Trump Blames Mental Health” and “mental health problem”. This repetition underscores the network’s focus on Trump’s narrative, painting it as a reductive and conflicting response to a broader national discussion on the root causes of mass shootings.

Like CNN, NBC News defines the problem as a conflicting narrative of attribution and scapegoating. The frequent use of Trump’s attribution, such as in “President Donald Trump Blames Mental Health For Texas Shooting” and “Trump Says Texas Church Shooting ‘Isn’t a Guns Situation’, Blames Mental Health”, positions mental health as the central issue according to the administration. This narrative suggests that focusing solely on mental health without addressing other issues, such as gun laws, is insufficient and potentially misleading. By highlighting statements like “President Donald Trump said Monday the mass shooting at a church in Texas ‘isn’t a guns situation’ but instead ‘a mental health problem at the highest level’,” NBC News critiques the administration’s approach and suggests that the issue is more complex than merely a mental health problem.

NBC’s framing implies a moral judgment that Trump’s focus on mental health as the sole cause of such incidents is inadequate and deflects from the necessary gun control debate. The network highlights this point by featuring critiques from various stakeholders, such as in “If Trump’s Blaming Mental Health, Why Did He Gut This Obama Gun-Check Rule?” and “Blaming mental health is a tactic straight out of the gun lobby’s playbook that’s meant to paralyze Congress”. These critiques suggest that the President’s stance is part of a broader strategy to avoid addressing gun control, which NBC frames as a crucial part of the solution.

The narrative calls for a more common-sense gun violence solution. They quote: “Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., echoed those remarks, telling NBC News, ‘Any link between mental health and gun violence in a particular situation cannot be used as an excuse for inaction on common sense gun violence measures’”.

14. Responsibility Versus Culpability (Accountability)

Accountability narratives in the news reports from ABC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC make up about 2.83% of the total word volume in the sampled platform publications. This volume is estimated by counting the number of words in the reports, totaling 153,795 words. They are broadly segmented into two—individual accountability and political (and institutional) accountability. The data emphasize four accountability narratives. (1) There is the narrative of the Air Force’s failure to document and/or communicate critical information (administrative, localized). We call this a “localized, institutional problem”, which is prominent in ABC News, Fox News, and NBC News. (2) The narrative of a “systemic US problem” is particularly prominent in CNN’s coverage. (3) CNN also affords significant attention to the narrative of individual pathology as a problem. (4) Finally, there is the narrative of a political rhetoric problem, prominent on MSNBC.

Overall, we identified two broad problem definitions in the accountability framing: the “failure” argument (ABC News, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC) and the “there may be a problem” (failure or issue) argument, which is dominant in the Fox News narrative. Figure 3 maps the relationships, and the following narratives provide details of the theme’s analyses.

14.1. Localized, Institutional Problem: ABC News Framing

ABC’s accountability framing is localized to a specific bureaucratic failure, namely the Air Force. The television network emphasizes the failure of an institution to document and communicate critical information that could have prevented the shooter from obtaining firearms. They capture the narrative problem definition, noting the “Air Force didn’t share info that would have blocked Texas shooter from gun buys”. Further evidence is in their frequent use of phrases such as “Air Force didn’t share info”, “Air Force failed to submit information”, “Administrative error”, “The National Instant Criminal Background Check System should have prevented the sale of the firearms Kelley purchased”, “Air Force has launched a review”, “Not entered into the National Criminal Information Center database”, “Should have prevented him from purchasing a firearm”, and “Convicted by a military court”. These reinforce this emphasis on the localized nature of the problem.

This problem definition is framed in a diagnostic and morally evaluative context. The cause is diagnosed as an administrative error within the Air Force, emphasizing the bureaucratic failure of a specific institution. “The failure was a result of what one law enforcement source described as an administrative error”. ABC News implies a moral failing in the system orchestrated by the Air Force failure that allowed the sale to proceed, indicating that proper procedures were not followed. “Had the conviction information been entered into the NCIC, it should have prevented the sale of the firearms Kelley purchased”. Consequently, the network draws attention to procedural reviews and corrections remedies, noting “The Air Force has launched a review into how Kelley’s criminal records were handled”.

14.2. Systemic and Individual Pathology Problems: CNN Framing

CNN’s accountability framing does not localize the problem to the Air Force but instead emphasizes a narrative that combines individual pathology and systemic failures. The systemic problem is found in coverage which notes the “Air Force failed to relay information that could have stopped firearm sales to the Texas church gunman”. The repetition of phrases like “Air Force failed to relay info” and “conviction not entered into the National Criminal Information Center database” highlights the narrative’s focus on accountability and responsibility.

The pathological problem provides a broader context of US institutional and administrative failure that are diagnostic and morally evaluative. “This week Americans are coping with yet another mass slaughter of the innocent by a new but strangely familiar figure, a deranged and heavily armed gunman”. CNN implies that current laws are insufficient and need reform, thereby making a moral judgment on the necessity of legislative changes. Moreover, the problem is more than just the Air Force; it is the US policy on “sovereign immunity”. “The possibility of recourse against the Air Force will also be exceptionally difficult. Generally, the legal doctrine of ‘sovereign immunity’ protects government entities like the military from being sued for negligence and money damages”. Broader still, the network concludes: “The slaughter is another signal that new laws are needed on who can buy guns”.

The network advocates for legislative action to provide justice and compensation to the victims’ families, suggesting legal reforms as a remedy. This narrative underscores the urgent need for policy changes. “A better way to bring needed compensation to the families for their losses would be for Congress to enact special legislation permitting immediate compensation to the victim’s families”.

14.3. Possible Air Force Documentation “Issue”: Fox News Framing

Fox News accountability framing draws attention to the possibility of an issue within the Air Force’s handling of criminal records, framing it as a probable institutional documentation issue, not a one-time error. They write: “Botched Air Force handling of Texas shooter’s criminal history may be a ‘systemic’ issue”. The punch of the word “botched” is diluted by the descriptives—“handling of” and “may be a “systemic issue’”. While the potential for a systemic issue moves toward a thematic frame, the inclusion of “may be” further dilutes the accusation.

The context of Fox News’ problem definition draws on diagnostic interpretation and moral evaluation. Although they present a quote—”The @NRA is a terrorist group who controls Congress with $$$. Nothing will change until that stops”—their presentation of this attack on the NRA emphasizes that it represents the opinion of a celebrity, and celebrities weighing in on political issues are often targets for media. Portraying the criticism of the NRA as celebrity venting, the presentation implies moral skepticism about the validity of the critique of the network’s view on gun accessibility. Similarly, Fox reports, “In the wake of the shooting, the National Rifle Association also has been slammed by ‘Veep’ actor Timothy Simons and ‘Nurse Jackie’ actor Lenny Jacobson”.

The suggestive remedy path highlighted in the Fox News accountability narrative is open-ended. It raises the frame of the debate to a “possibility” requiring investigation but localizes the problem to this specific case of the Air Force.

14.4. Narrative of a Political Rhetoric Problem: MSNBC Framing

MSNBC’s accountability framing narrative is about political rhetoric and mischaracterization of the mass shooting issue by political leaders. MSNBC defines the problem by suggesting these mischaracterizations hinder effective solutions. “Following mass shooting Trump says this ‘isn’t a guns situation’”.

Also, the political rhetoric problem is framed in a diagnostic and morally evaluative context. The cause is attributed to political actions and rhetoric that exacerbate the problem. “Whether the president understands this or not, Donald Trump has taken steps to make matters worse regarding mental health and guns”. This framing necessitates a moral evaluation—Trump’s blame game that is bifurcative. “Trump says this ‘isn’t a guns situation’. Blames Mental Health”. The networker’s implied solution is addressing the political rhetoric of the President.

14.5. Localized, Institutional Problem: NBC News Framing

NBC News’ accountability framing defines the problem as the failure of the Air Force to document and report the gunman’s criminal convictions, focusing on localized, institutional failures. “Air Force failed to report Texas church gunman’s domestic violence convictions”. The repetition of phrases like “Air Force failed to report …” and “Air Force Officer Failed to Enter Domestic Violence Court-Martial into a National Database” and their variations, along with “Senators Criticize the Air Force” and “Call for Probe”, underscore a multifaceted accountability narrative.

This localized problem definition is framed in a diagnostic and morally evaluative context. NBC News attributes the cause to the institution’s failure in the reporting system that allowed the shooter to purchase firearms. “The Texas church shooter shouldn’t have been able to legally own a gun”. The narrative correlates with the moral evaluation, underscoring the legal and moral failing, and emphasizing that existing laws should have prevented the gun purchase. “Federal law prohibited him from buying or possessing firearms after this conviction”.

Consequently, the network suggests thorough reviews and potential policy changes within the Air Force as a remedy. Rather than advocating for new regulation, the framing suggests the need for better enforcement, noting “Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson and Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, have ordered a ‘complete review of the Kelley case’”.

15. News Reports and Audience Responses and Analysis

Hypothesis (H1) posits that there is a positive association between the sentiments expressed in US television networks’ framing of stricter gun control (positive, negative, neutral) and the corresponding sentiments of the audience (positive, negative, neutral). The crosstabulation analysis (

Table 1. US Television stricter gun regulation narrative sentiments and audience online comment sentiments.

Stricter Gun Regulation Narratives * Audience Sentiment Crosstabulation
% Within Audience Sentiment
			Sentiments
			Negative	Neutral	Positive	Total
Stricter Gun Control Narratives	ABC News Audience Comments		28.1% a	21.8% a	8.1% b	17.0%
	ABC News Reports		0.3% a	1.8% a,b	1.3% b	0.9%
	CNN News Audience Comments		8.7% a	23.6% b	12.6% c	11.3%
	CNN News Reports		1.1% a	3.6% a,b	2.6% b	2.0%
	Fox News Audience Comments		45.0% a	9.1% b	46.1% a	44.4%
	Fox News Reports		1.2% a	5.5% b	0.2% c	0.8%
	MSNBC News Audience Comments		5.8% a	1.8% a	14.7% b	10.5%
	MSNBC News Reports		0.4% a	1.8% a,b	2.1% b	1.4%
	NBC News Audience Comments		9.1% a	27.3% b	10.5% a	10.5%
	NBC News Reports		0.3% a	3.6% b	1.8% b	1.2%
Total			100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
			Asymptotic Significance
	Value	df	(2-Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	225.052 a	18	0.000
Likelihood Ratio	228.735	18	0.000
N of Valid Cases	1702

Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Audience Sentiment categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level. ^a 5 cells (16.7%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.45. The asterisk (*) indicates a crosstabulation between stricter gun regulation narratives and audience sentiments, analyzing the relationship of these variables.

) offers a comparative view of how stricter gun control narratives are perceived across different news networks and their audiences.

Audience sentiment is categorized as negative, neutral, and positive, with data drawn from ABC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC News. Key findings include the following: Fox News has a highly polarized audience, representing both 45.0% of the negative views and 46.1% of the positive sentiments. Neutral comments are significantly lower at 9.1%. ABC News shows a primarily negative audience sentiment, representing 28.1% of all negative views, followed by 21.8% neutral and 8.1% of positive sentiments, indicating that a significant portion of the audience views stricter gun control negatively. CNN’s audience is more neutral, expressing 23.6% of the neutral sentiments, and only 8.7% of the negative, and 12.6% of the positive. MSNBC’s audience leans more positive (14.7%) compared to negative (5.8%) and neutral (1.8%) percentages of the sentiments. NBC News exhibits a stronger neutral sentiment at 27.3%, with negative (9.1%) and positive (10.5%) sentiments relatively balanced.

In contrast, the sentiment in actual news reports from these networks is much less pronounced. Across all networks, the news reports show minimal expression of negative, neutral, and positive sentiments, with most percentages falling below 6%. This suggests that the news coverage itself is more neutral or balanced compared to the audience’s reactions. The Pearson Chi-Square test revealed a value of (χ² (18, N = 1702) = 225.05, p < 0.001), indicating that the distribution of audience sentiment across different networks is statistically significant.

Hypothesis (H2) posits that there is a significant association between the sentiments expressed in US television networks’ framing of mental health issues (positive, negative, neutral) and the corresponding sentiments of the audience (positive, negative, neutral).

Table 2. US television mental health issue narrative sentiments and audience online comment sentiments.

US TV Mental Health Issue Narratives * Audience Sentiment Crosstabulation
% Within Sentiment
			News Reports & Audience Sentiments
			Negative	Neutral	Positive	Total
US TV Mental Health Issue Narratives	ABC News Audience Comments				14.6% b	8.3%
	ABC News Reports		7.1% a	16.7% a		3.5%
	CNN News Audience Comments		21.4% a	8.3% a	21.5% a	20.9%
	CNN News Reports		7.1% a		4.2% a	5.1%
	Fox News Audience Comments		21.4% a	8.3% a	21.5% a	20.9%
	Fox News Reports				0.7% a	0.4%
	MSNBC News Audience Comments		19.4% a	8.3% a	11.8% a	14.6%
	MSNBC News Reports		10.2% a	8.3% a,b	2.8% b	5.9%
	NBC News Audience Comments		12.2% a	50.0% b	19.4% a	18.1%
	NBC News Reports		1.0% a		3.5% a	2.4%
Total			100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
			Asymptotic Significance
	Value	df	(2-Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	53.607 a	18	0.000
Likelihood Ratio	62.752	18	0.000
N of Valid Cases	254

Each subscript letter (_a or _b) denotes a subset of audience sentiment categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level. ^a 15 cells (50.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.05. The asterisk (*) indicates a crosstabulation between US TV mental health issue narratives and audience sentiments, analyzing the interaction of these variables.

present the results from a Pearson correlation analysis. The analysis included 254 valid cases.

As Table 2 shows, the results of the Chi-Square test indicated a statistically significant association between the US TV networks’ narratives on mental health issues and audience sentiments, χ² (18, N = 254) = 53.61, p < 0.001. This significant p-value suggests that the observed differences in audience sentiment across various networks are not due to chance, confirming that the way mental health issues are framed by different television networks has a meaningful impact on how audiences respond. Additionally, the analysis shows that 15 cells (50.0%) had an expected count of less than 5, with the minimum expected count being 0.05, which could indicate some limitations in the data distribution. Despite this, the significant association remains robust, as indicated by the p-value.

Hypothesis 3 postulates that there is a significant association between the sentiments expressed in US television networks’ framing of individual accountability issues (positive, negative, neutral) and the corresponding sentiments of the audience (positive, negative, neutral). The Pearson Chi-Square test result (χ² (18, N = 833) = 114.42, p < 0.001) indicates that there is a statistically significant association between the sentiments expressed in US television networks’ framing of individual accountability issues and the corresponding sentiments of the audience. The p-value of less than 0.001 strongly suggests that the observed association is not due to chance, thus confirming the hypothesis that a significant relationship exists between these variables.

Table 3. US television individual accountability narrative sentiments and audience online Comment sentiments.

US TV Individual Accountability Issue Narratives * Audience Sentiment Crosstabulation
% Within Audience Sentiment
			Audience Sentiment
			Negative	Neutral	Positive	Total
US TV Individual Accountability Issue Narratives	ABC News Audience Comments		6.0% a,b	4.2% b	9.9% a	8.4%
	ABC News Reports		4.0% a	2.5% a,b	0.7% b	1.6%
	CNN News Audience Comments		14.8% a	15.1% a	9.7% a	11.4%
	CNN News Reports		2.7% a	5.0% a	0.5% b	1.6%
	Fox News Audience Comments		45.6% a	37.8% a	56.5% b	51.9%
	Fox News Reports		2.7% a	1.7% a	1.6% a	1.8%
	MSNBC News Audience Comments		0.7% a	9.2% b	6.9% b	6.1%
	MSNBC News Reports		3.4% a	5.0% a	0.2% b	1.4%
	NBC News Audience Comments		11.4% a	17.6% a	13.6% a	13.8%
	NBC News Reports		8.7% a	1.7% b	0.4% b	2.0%
Total			100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
			Asymptotic Significance
	Value	df	(2-Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	114.419 a	18	0.000
Likelihood Ratio	103.833	18	0.000
N of Valid Cases	833

Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Audience Sentiment categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level. ^a. 10 cells (33.3%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.71. The asterisk (*) indicates a crosstabulation between US TV individual accountability issue narratives and audience sentiments, analyzing the interaction of these variables.

presents the results.

There are also network-specific key findings. Fox News’ audience provided a majority of the comments (51.9%). However, they also provided a significant majority of the positive views of individual accountability (56.5%) and the plurality of negative sentiments (45.6%), and also the largest share of neutral comments (37.8%). This indicates a strong leaning towards positive perceptions among Fox News viewers. ABC News shows a diverse spread, reflecting 9.9% of the positive sentiments, 6.0% of the negative, and 4.2% of the neutral. While they represent a smaller percentage of the overall comments (8.4%) than Fox News’ (51.9%), the ABC News’ audience provides a stronger proportion of the positive to negative sentiments.

CNN’s audience has a fairly even distribution across sentiments, providing 14.8% of the negative sentiments, 15.1% of the neutral, and 9.7% of the positive. Still, that is a weaker percentage of positive to negative comments than either of the audiences from Fox or ABC. MSNBC has a very low representation of negative sentiment (0.7%) but a higher neutral sentiment at 9.2%. Positive sentiment is at 6.9%, reflecting more positive and neutral views among MSNBC viewers. NBC News shows a more neutral sentiment at 17.6%, with 11.4% of comments negative and 13.6% positive. This indicates a tendency towards neutrality or slight positivity.

Hypothesis 4 posits that there is a significant association between the sentiments expressed in US television networks’ framing of political accountability issues (positive, negative, neutral) and the corresponding sentiments of the audience (positive, negative, neutral). Pearson correlation analysis shows results in

Table 4. US television political accountability narrative sentiments and audience online comment sentiments.

US TV Political Accountability Narratives * Audience Sentiment Crosstabulation
% Within Audience Sentiment
			Negative	Neutral	Positive	Total
US TV Political Accountability Narratives	ABC News Audience Comments		4.1% a		9.8% b	7.8%
	ABC News Reports		4.7% a	2.4% a,b	1.5% b	2.3%
	CNN News Audience Comments		14.6% a	2.4% b	14.4% a	13.7%
	CNN News Reports			2.4% b	1.0% a,b	0.9%
	Fox News Audience Comments		56.1% a	39.0% b	49.5% a,b	50.5%
	Fox News Reports		1.8% a	4.9% a		0.7%
	MSNBC News Audience Comments		4.1% a		9.2% b	7.4%
	MSNBC News Reports				1.0% a	0.7%
	NBC News Audience Comments		14.0% a	43.9% b	12.1% a	14.5%
	NBC News Reports		0.6% a	4.9% b	1.5% a,b	1.4%
Total			100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
			Asymptotic
	Value	df	Significance (2-Sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	79.677 a	18	0.000
Likelihood Ratio	78.117	18	0.000
N of Valid Cases	691

Each subscript letter denotes a subset of Audience Sentiment categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level. ^a 15 cells (50.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected is 0.30. The asterisk (*) indicates a crosstabulation between US TV political accountability issue narratives and audience sentiments, analyzing the relationship of these variables.

.

As shown in the cross-tabulation and Chi-Square test results (see Table 4), there is a statistically significant association between US television networks’ narratives on political accountability and the corresponding sentiments of their audiences, χ² (18, N = 691) = 79.68, p < 0.001. This significant p-value indicates that the differences observed in audience sentiment across various networks are not due to chance, confirming that the way political accountability is framed by different television networks has a meaningful impact on how audiences respond.

There are also network-specific findings. Fox News displayed the most pronounced alignment with audience sentiment, particularly in the negative category, representing 56.1% of all negative comments made by the audiences. Despite Fox News reports showing relatively low engagement across all sentiment categories (1.8% negative, 4.9% neutral, and no positive comments), the audience’s strong negative response suggests a significant resonance with its framing of political accountability, likely reinforcing existing critical views among its viewers.

ABC News’s audience comments demonstrated a much stronger percentage of the total of positive sentiments (9.8%) compared to their share of the negative comments (4.1%). However, ABC News reports were mostly neutral to slightly negative, indicating a potential misalignment between the network’s framing and its audience’s reactions.

CNN’s audience demonstrated a balance, contributing 14.6% of the negative and 14.4% of the positive comments. The network’s reports, however, showed minimal engagement, with only 2.4% neutral and 1.0% positive sentiments, suggesting that CNN’s audience might be reacting to other factors beyond the network’s direct framing of political accountability.

NBC News presented a unique case where audience comments were predominantly neutral (43.9% of the total), despite the network’s reports showing a low presence across all sentiment categories. This suggests that NBC News’ audience might be more moderate or mixed in their views, leading to a more neutral overall response.

Like NBC News, MSNBC showed a relatively balanced audience sentiment with 9.2% positive comments and minimal negative responses. This indicates that MSNBC’s framing may align closely with a supportive audience base.

16. Discussion

Understanding how online audiences respond to news reports on mass shootings—particularly regarding the critical issues of mental health, gun regulation, and accountability—is essential for public discourse on prevention. Although existing scholarship (Lindgren et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2021; D’Angelo, 2017; Cacciatore et al., 2016; Entman, 1993) examines framing effects on public opinion, there is a gap in understanding how these frames affect online audience engagement. Our study addresses this gap by analyzing the interactions between media framing and audience responses in mass shooting coverage, offering new insights with policy implications. A key takeaway is the complex relationship between audiences and online news. In the gun debate and mental health issues, while there were measured responses to thematic framing of systemic issues, more conservative-leaning narratives on Fox News received less Fox News audience support. In the case of ABC News, audience responses did not seem to support stricter gun regulations. There were other variations of this phenomenon in the other networks as we discuss. Broadly, the findings reveal what we describe as conflict framing, where either-or propositions are more prominent, reflecting the polarized landscape of U.S. news culture.

The primary research question examines the U.S. television networks—ABC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and NBC—framing of gun debates, mental health, and accountability in mass shootings and how these frames relate to online audience engagement. One result we did not expect is the lack of strong correlations between a network’s episodic framing and the reactions of its online audience. Previous research finds strong correlations between a platform’s episodic framing of a story and the reactions to it (Bos et al., 2016; Nisbet et al., 2013; Boukes & Boomgaarden, 2015; Chong & Druckman, 2007), but whether it was the online audience’s introduction of themes not featured in a platform’s framing or a strong negative reaction to that frame, there were multiple instances of strong online reactions that did not correlate with the network’s framing efforts. Beyond the possibility of random reactions, there are several potential reasons why platforms might attract audiences that do not agree with their framing. Perhaps the interaction of mass shootings and perceived political framing of the network invite audiences that would not otherwise follow that network (i.e., pro-gun control viewers might be more likely to visit the Fox chatrooms after a public shooting than at other times to engage in debate, more anti-gun control viewers might be more likely to visit ABC, NBC, or MSNBC’s chatrooms for precisely the same reason). Perhaps the unique dimensions of this shooting, which involved the military, a church service, a large number of casualties, a rural Texas town, and a red state, created a unique set of conditions. Perhaps the demographic differences in the audiences, which we are incapable of measuring based on the sampled data, are plausible variables that could provide a clue for these differences, or perhaps the fact that it occurred near the midterm elections may have impacted the results. These concerns are valid issues that need further investigation.

One clear result of the data that we did not seek is the dominance of FOX News interaction from its audience. The number of reports on the shooting ranged from MSNBC’s low of 62 to ABC News’ high of 202. Fox News provided the second fewest number of reports on the shooting (92), and the fewest number of words on the topic (6493). This was substantially less than the other sources, which ranged from MSNBC’s 20,454 words to CNN’s 75,462 words. However, Fox News accumulated 12,906 audience responses, finishing second to CNN, but dwarfing the number of responses from NBC (4879) and MSNBC (2208). Once we filtered out the genuine comments, Fox News rose to the top with 3409 of a total of 7605 valid comments.

There are several potential explanations for the disproportionate impact of FOX News’ audience comments on this topic, especially given that they provided less coverage than most of the other sources. One may be the reality that Fox is the most popular of the broadcast and cable news platforms. A second may be their relatively heavy use of YouTube compared to the others. However, given the varied nature of the audience responses, it is also possible that their audience was simply more engaged and often willing to challenge perspectives. It is also possible that the decision of the largest cable network, Fox, to provide relatively limited coverage that relied heavily on the theme of a “good shooter” as the necessary response to gun violence may have attracted additional themes to the conversation, resulting in a far more vigorous discussion on its boards than what existed either in its framing or on the online comments of its competitors.

17. Dominant Frame Narratives

Gun Debate Narratives. The analysis reveals distinct variations in how news networks frame the gun debate showing conflicting narratives between networks. ABC News presents gun violence as a pervasive, systemic problem necessitating national legislative action. Similarly, CNN highlights issues of gun accessibility and legislative failures. MSNBC focuses primarily on political accountability and leadership failures related to gun control. In contrast, Fox News emphasizes individual accountability, attributing gun violence to personal responsibility and advocating for armed self-defense. Meanwhile, NBC News adopts a balanced approach, addressing systemic failures in gun accessibility and reporting lapses in criminal histories.

These findings align with previous scholarship on media framing and public opinion. Research by Cacciatore et al. (2016) and Entman (1993) suggests media outlets prioritize specific news aspects, reflecting a polarized news culture, a symptom of partisanship in the U.S. news landscape (Zhang et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2019; Stroud, 2011; Chong & Druckman, 2007; Iyengar, 1996; Scheufele, 1999; Matthes & Schemer, 2012). Perhaps the eco-chamber experience is not simply about the audience, but also about the news networks, broadly speaking, although the level of intensity varies. The thematic framing by ABC, CNN, and MSNBC, focusing on systemic gun issues, demonstrates a broader concern with societal and political failures. This approach, previously shown to increase issue salience and support for policy action (Guo et al., 2021; Entman, 1993), generates neutral or positive audience engagement, particularly among ABC and CNN viewers expressing moderate views.

Fox News’ episodic framing, which centers on individual shooters and personal responsibility, effectively resonates with its audience, creating polarized responses, echoing Gross (2008) who argued that such framing shifts blame to individuals, thereby diminishing support for systemic reforms. While debates persist regarding Fox News’ demographic, Guo et al. (2021) assert that episodic frames tend to influence conservative-leaning audiences. However, the current study reveals surprising nuances, with Fox News narratives eliciting mixed responses including slightly more support for stricter gun regulation while ABC News’ audiences display some opposition to the network’s stance on stricter gun regulation.

These unexpected findings suggest that the U.S. active online audience cannot be easily categorized as left-leaning or right-leaning based solely on the news they consume or the channels they favor. Policymakers and journalists should recognize that audiences possess unique perspectives that may not align with the narratives propagated by their preferred legacy networks. Additionally, when news networks adopt divisive stances on sensitive issues like gun violence, they might inadvertently trigger counter-narratives. This phenomenon not only stems from opposition networks, as noted by Iyengar (1996), Scheufele (1999), and Matthes and Schemer (2012), but can also emerge from within their own online audiences, challenging the assumptions about audience alignment and engagement. Perhaps there is still a lesson in Lazarsfeld et al.’s (1948) work in The People’s Choice. While the context of our analysis differs dramatically from the focus (Presidential election vs. mass shooting event), scope (Erie County vs. national news audiences), time (1940 vs. 2016), and media (newspapers, radio, and campaign advertising vs. broadcast and cable news and related social media platforms), it is possible that his analysis of a “two-way flow” revives itself with a digital citizenry capable of interacting with each other internationally via open online comment sections. Clearly the effect of 1940 influencers (family, friends, and influential people in the county) is vastly different from online interaction with largely anonymous others, but it may be that in a world in which that online interaction is ubiquitous, comments from audiences that resonate with a different audience member may reframe conversations in ways that conflict with the dominant framing coming from the news provider, at least with certain high-profile topics like gun control.

Mental Health Narratives. The research findings underscore contrasting approaches to framing mental health narratives across news networks. ABC News and NBC News present mental health issues as part of systemic failures, critiquing the political tendency to scapegoat mental health instead of addressing gun regulation. Their framing aligns with DOJ NIJ et al. (2023) research, which emphasizes the complex relationship between mental health and gun violence. On the other hand, the MSNBC framing of the issue is within a political context, focusing on legislative and policy shortcomings. However, its episodic framing diverts attention into an unproductive either–or debate. Fox News, on the other hand, frames mental health as an individual pathology, often highlighting the shooter’s mental state to explain incidents, rejecting systemic and political accountability. CNN offers a more balanced view, discussing both mental health and gun accessibility.

Synthetic analysis reveals that systemic framing of mental health correlates with more supportive public (online comments) sentiment for improving mental health policies. This is particularly evident in the audiences of CNN and MSNBC, where there is significant support for mental health accountability. However, this raises concerns about potential prejudice in public attitudes, as discussed by Metzel and MacLeish (2015) and McGinty et al. (2013), who warn against scapegoating mental health in policy debates. Fox News’ focus on individual pathology correlates with more negative sentiment toward gun regulation, supporting findings by Zhang et al. (2023) and Schildkraut et al. (2015) that episodic framing shifts blame from legislative failure to individual shooters. This approach seems to deflect attention from systemic reforms and minimizes the role of policy in preventing gun violence. Although a regression analysis of the results is not feasible due to the nature of the online data used in this analysis, we can still propose some arguments that might help explain the correlation between the episodic framing in this context and less positive online sentiments toward legislative accountability in gun regulation. We argue that framing mental health in discussions of mass shootings can either promote or inhibit constructive public discourse, depending on whether it is presented as a societal issue or an individual problem. Systemic framing encourages broader policy discussions, while individualistic framing narrows the focus to personal responsibility, diminishing public demand for legislative change. The following discussion on accountability narratives aligns with this conclusion.

Accountability Narratives. The framing of accountability in the context of mass shootings varies significantly across networks, reinforcing conflicting framing. It focuses on political/institutional versus individual accountability. ABC, CNN, and NBC highlight institutional failures, such as the U.S. Air Force’s lapse in reporting the shooter’s criminal record, enabling him to purchase firearms. MSNBC emphasizes political accountability, criticizing leaders for not implementing effective gun reforms. In contrast, Fox News centers on individual responsibility, attributing mass shootings to mental health issues or personal failings rather than institutional shortcomings.

This dichotomy in framing is consistent with previous research on framing effects. Matthes and Schemer (2012) observed that episodic framing, like Fox News’s focus on individual accountability, often provokes emotional responses that detract from systemic or political discussions. Evidence of this is reflected in Fox News viewers, whose audience largely directed negative sentiments towards political accountability, preferring to blame the shooter. Conversely, MSNBC audiences, influenced by a focus on political accountability, showed positive engagement toward systemic reforms.

ABC and NBC’s focus on institutional accountability resulted in more moderate audience responses. Comments on these networks were less emotionally charged, reflecting a balanced engagement with accountability issues. This result aligns with Valkenburg et al. (1999), who found that thematic framing encourages cognitive engagement over emotional reactions.

The implications are clear: thematic framing emphasizing institutional or political failures can foster nuanced public discourse and support for systemic change. Conversely, episodic framing focusing on individual responsibility tends to polarize opinion and limit support for broader reforms.

In conclusion, the framing strategies used by U.S. television networks impact online audience engagement with gun regulation, mental health, and accountability issues. However, the impact is not always positive, as audiences may provide a counter-narrative when the framing is episodic in character. While ABC, CNN, and MSNBC’s thematic approach encourages a more constructive public discourse, Fox News’s episodic framing of polarized reactions overshadows systemic issues with individual accountability narratives. Moreover, if online comments are to be considered a vital aspect of gauging public sentiments toward news narratives on issues of mental health and gun policy in mass shootings, then the results do not suggest a direct positive impact. The complexity of this issue might be more evident if one were to examine demographic differences in the online audience responses. At best, as we discuss in Hypothesis 1 below, broadly speaking, audiences provide a more nuanced sentiment than those of the media houses to whose narratives they are responding.

18. Stricter Gun Regulation and Audience Sentiments

Hypothesis 1 suggested that narratives framing support for stricter gun regulations produce more positive audience sentiments toward gun control. This hypothesis was partially confirmed: Fox News audiences displayed polarized reactions, providing 45% of the negative and 46.1% of the total positive responses to stricter gun control, while NBC and CNN audiences showed neutral to slightly positive reactions.

These findings align with research by Gross (2008) and Cacciatore et al. (2016) on how narrative framing influences emotional responses. Fox News’s skeptical framing intensified audience division, supporting Entman’s (1993) theory that partisan framing can heighten polarization. This study contributes to the literature by quantifying polarization, demonstrating its presence in both conservative-leaning Fox News and more moderate ABC News.

The results underscore the persistent divisiveness of the gun control debate, with media framing often exacerbating polarization rather than fostering consensus. The diverse reactions among Fox News and ABC News audiences highlight that framing does not result in uniform responses, even within a network’s viewership. Notably, while Fox News viewers did not uniformly align with the network’s stance on stricter gun control, they supported narratives focused on individual accountability, unlike other networks. This complexity emphasizes the nuanced effects of framing on public opinion and the media’s role in shaping the gun regulation discourse. It also suggests that online interactive audiences may also play a role in shaping audience reactions.

19. Mental Health Framing and Audience Sentiments

Hypothesis 2 posited that framing narratives focusing on mental health as the primary factor in mass shootings generates positive audience sentiments toward mental health accountability. The hypothesis was supported: CNN and MSNBC, which emphasized mental health, saw 21.5% and 11.18% of the positive sentiments on mental health accountability come from their audiences, respectively. Fox News audiences showed nearly equal reactions, with 21.5% positive associations and 21.4% negative, despite the network’s minimal support in framing mental health issues (0.7%), which is worth noting. The finding highlights the complexity of mental health debates, as networks offer fewer framing narratives than other studied issues.

These findings align with Schildkraut et al. (2015) and Metzel and MacLeish (2015), who observed that public reactions to mental health narratives in mass shootings can lead to negative responses, potentially targeting individuals with mental health issues. The result highlights the need for caution when linking mental health to mass shootings, as it can result in stigmatization. Despite audience perceptions, many mass shooters do not have diagnosed mental disorders and often meticulously plan their attacks (Fox & DeLateur, 2014; Rocque & Duwe, 2018), with the majority not being individuals with mental health issues (NIJ et al., 2023).

While the overall results support the hypothesis, audiences for the news providers were often inconsistent with the news’ framing of the issue. ABC News’ audience universally supported their frame, while NBC News’ audience also leaned positively. Fox News and CNN News audiences were surprisingly balanced given the frames presented by those networks, and MSNBC’s audience sentiments leaned negatively, which was also surprising. Thus, even with strong overall support for the hypothesis, there were enough discrepancies between audience reactions and network frames to suggest that audiences were either representing their own strongly held views or possibly influencing other audience members to support them.

20. Negative Sentiments Toward Gun Regulation Following Mental Health Framing

Hypothesis 3 posits that framing mental health as the primary cause of mass shootings leads to negative sentiments toward stricter gun regulations. The hypothesis was supported, especially in Fox News coverage, whose audience provided 45.6% of the sentiments opposed to gun control, attributing the issue to mental health instead. These findings align with Zhang et al. (2023) and McGinty et al. (2013), who noted that such framing can deflect blame from gun regulations.

This study expands on those insights by illustrating how this kind of framing fosters active online discussions, particularly among conservative-leaning networks that resist stricter gun regulations when mental health is emphasized. Media framing mental health as the main factor in mass shootings can undermine gun regulation support, suggesting gun violence is more about individual pathology than any other systemic issues. The result highlights that focusing too heavily on mental health in framing may detract from broader policy debates on gun violence prevention and regulations.

21. Individual Accountability and Political Accountability

Hypothesis 4, which proposed a negative association between network framing of individual accountability and political accountability audience sentiments, was confirmed, notably with Fox News. Here, 56.1% of comments reflected negative sentiments toward political accountability, aligning with episodic framing emphasizing individual responsibility over systemic reform. This pattern supports findings by Matthes, Schemer, and D’Angelo, suggesting that episodic framing diminishes public appetite for institutional change. Conversely, networks like ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC, which employ thematic framing, show more measured audience responses, promoting nuanced public discourse and support for systemic reforms, which relates to their de-emphasis on individual accountability.

These findings support Matthes and Schemer (2012) and D’Angelo (2017), who noted that episodic framing reduces the public’s focus on systemic or political accountability. Our study adds new insights by revealing how this framing influences online engagement, with audiences accepting these narratives and actively reinforcing them through comments and discussions.

The audience’s preference for individual over political accountability in mass shooting cases has significant implications for public discourse. Media outlets emphasizing episodic framing may weaken public demand for systemic reforms, as their audiences tend to focus on the shooter’s actions rather than broader legislative or policy failures.

22. Conclusions

Through a mixed-methods approach involving content analysis of 678 news reports and sentiment analysis of 7605 audience comments across five U.S. national television platforms, this research examines the alignment between media narratives and audience sentiments. The findings are crucial for scholars, policymakers, journalists, and others interested in how media framing correlates with public opinion and audience-driven discourse.

The study gauges the impact of media framing on audience sentiments concerning mass shootings, particularly in areas such as gun regulation, mental health, and accountability. It confirms prior research on framing effects while expanding those insights by showing how framing affects online engagement. Media outlets influence how audiences interact with narratives, shaping broader public discourse on these critical issues. However, it also demonstrates that online interactive audiences feel comfortable to present their own views in opposition to those frames and may be influencing other audience members in the process. A conclusion is that the relationship between media frames of mass shootings in mental health and gun debates and audience sentiments is not necessarily linear. A causal relationship claim is yet to be found. There are indicators showing many unexplained variables between media frames and how the audience responds. If this claim is valid, then policy debates need not presume audience responses based on which media the audience consumes. Audiences in the USA are much more complex.

The research is limited by focusing on audience responses and news framing in specific areas, excluding broader accountability issues like moral, ethical, social, systemic, media, religious, cultural, philosophical, and existential perspectives. The absence of demographic data on online comments and audience sentiments constrains the ability to determine specific distinctions that could be identified if the framing were analyzed based on demographic differences. Additionally, the study does not track audience response trends over extended periods, which could provide insights into the role of time in shaping these responses. In addition, it would be beneficial to determine whether there might be changes as one moves from one type of mass shooting to another. These limitations suggest areas for future research to further understand the complexities of media influence on public discourse.