Framing “The Other”: A Comparative Analysis of Pro-Government and Independent Media in the Gambia’s Post-Authoritarian Transition (2024–2025)

Media framing is a potent tool in shaping public perception, mainly in transitional democracies where the boundaries of acceptable discourse are contested. The paper presents a comparative content analysis of four Gambian media houses, the state-owned Gambia Radio & Television Services and the independent Kerr Fatou, The Fatu Network, and Alkamba Times – during the period 2024-2025. It investigates how these outlets frame "the Other", defined as entities that are positioned in opposition to the dominant state narratives, including political dissenters, critical journalists, and civil society actors. The findings indicate a stark divergence in framing strategies emanating from ownership structures. The pro-government GRTS consistently deployed legitimising frames, framing government actions as progressive and dissent as a threat to national unity. Independent outlets, on the other hand, utilise accountability and rights-based frames, with state power and restrictive laws emerging as the chief threats to democracy. Other key findings also revealed how digital platforms have transformed the reach of independent frames at immense ethical costs and how the legal and economic constraints continue to disproportionately impact independent media and make them a fragile "Other" within the media landscape. The study concludes that the battle to define "the Other" is central in the fragile democratic consolidation of The Gambia, thus making legal reforms, economic sustainability, and reinforced journalistic ethics urgent imperatives for the nurturing of a media landscape supportive of pluralistic discourses.

Media framing, The Gambia, post-authoritarian

1. Bennett, W. L. (1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations. Journal of Communication, 40(2), 103–127. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Communication Strategies among Promoters During MATTA Fair 2025
• An Examination of Colleen Ballinger’s Experience in Social Media: Cancel Culture Chronicle
• Communication Patterns in Conflict Interactions in Premarital Couples Who Are in Abusive Relationships
• Social Media Use on Mental Health Outcomes among Adolescents and Young Adults in Port Harcourt City
• (Un)Successful Error Repairs in L2 Communication