Self-Defence or a Killer?
Two Competing Frames Surrounding the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Introduction

One of the most heated events that happened in 2021 was the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse in November. Rittenhouse was on trial for shooting and killing two men, and injuring one man, during the Black Lives Matter protests in August 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, United States. The Black Lives Matter protests in Kenosha began after the death of Jacob Blake at the hands of police officers. One of the men that Rittenhouse killed was a Black man, which ignited a polarizing debate on race and violence, which were at the core of Rittenhouse’s trial. Rittenhouse faced seven charges: (1) first-degree reckless homicide, use of a dangerous weapon; (2) first-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon; (3) another first-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon; (4) first-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon; (5) attempted first-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon; (6) possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18; and (7) failure to comply with an emergency order from a state or local government (Richmond 2021). Viral videos of Rittenhouse walking with an AR-15 rifle and waving at onlookers circulated through social media and the news. Ultimately, Rittenhouse was acquitted on all seven charges. Since the shooting last year, and the outcome of the trial, competing narratives of whether Rittenhouse was a vigilante that stepped up to stop the violent unrest occurring at the protest, or whether he was a killer that shot protestors who were fighting against systemic racism, flooded social media and news media. 

A news frame is defined by Wolfsfeld (2011) as “organizing devices journalists use to tell a coherent story,” or, “an ongoing theme that runs throughout a particular story” (50). These frames can have a major impact on the general public’s opinion and policies that are made by governments. This paper investigates two competing frames that have emerged from the debate surrounding Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial, the “self-defence” frame, and the “provoker” frame. I will first explain the methodology behind my research. Then, I will explain the results and how the two frames have emerged. Lastly, I will analyse and discuss the frames within broader themes in the media and politics like race relations and gun safety in the US. 

Methodology

I looked at the news coverage of Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial on four different news platforms: CNN, FOX News, The National Review, and The Young Turks. CNN, FOX News, the National Review, and The Young Turks are all American based, commentary heavy news platforms. Additionally, CNN and the Young Turks are known to be more left-leaning news platforms, whereas FOX News and the National Review are known to be more right-leaning news platforms. For The Young Turks, I looked at their youtube news coverage since they are primarily a video-based news platform. For the other news platforms, I looked at their written articles. For a list of all the charges, I consulted the Associated Press’s explainer. 

To investigate the frames these news platforms were promoting, I looked at four main factors. Firstly, I read the headlines of three articles from each platform covering the trial. In the headlines, I conducted a literary analysis to check word choice and emphasis. In particular, I looked at what words were used to describe the charges and Rittenhouse. I then moved to the first two paragraphs, or the first few minutes of the videos to see if the shooting was mentioned or not. If the shooting was mentioned, I analysed the language used to describe the shooting and who was made to be seen as the victim, the people killed, or the defendant on trial. Third, I examined the visuals presented in each article and video. I checked to see if they used images or videos of the trial and shooting, if so, whose images or videos were they showing. Lastly, I checked the remaining content of the articles and videos to see what kind of evidence was used, and which events were given more attention (i.e. the shooting, the trial, or the defendant).

Analysis and Discussion

Based on the findings (see Appendix), I have identified two main frames regarding this trial. The first frame is the “self-defence” frame, and the second frame is the “provoker frame.” The title of these two frames come from the language of the trial itself, whereby the defence claimed self-defence, and the prosecutor accused Rittenhouse of being a provoker. As Wolfsfeld writes, “once a news frame has been established, journalists use frames to tell us how to understand a particular event” (51). The “self-defence” frame understands the trial as one that has misunderstood Rittenhouse, and that he is the victim, whereas the “provoker” frame understands the trial as a privileged White young man that killed innocent civilians. I will now analyse each of the four factors I used to determine these frames, and discuss their implications.

Firstly, I looked at the language used in the headlines of the articles and videos published on the four news publications. In the headlines for CNN, FOX News, and The National Review, Rittenhouse, and the verdict is given the most emphasis. Most of the headlines of the articles I analysed of these three platforms spelled out Rittenhouse’s full name, and usually started the headline with his name, placing emphasis on him as an individual. That is then followed by the mention of the verdict. The Young Turks however do not mention his full name, and make him a passive figure in the headline, where it is the actions of his lawyers, or the presiding judge, or other elements of the trial that are important rather than him as an individual. 

In CNN’s headline “Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges. Here's what we know about the 3 men he shot,” the verdict of the trial is written as something that happened to him, but they follow it up by writing what he did to others, which is the action of shooting. It removes emphasis from the trial and the verdict, and puts emphasis on his actions, which supports the “provoker” frame. Contrarily, in FOX News’s headline “Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all counts in Kenosha trial,” the verdict again is mentioned first, but it is more humanised, and assumes innocence by the use of ‘not guilty’ instead of ‘acquitted’ like the CNN headline. This humanises Rittenhouse to the reader. Furthermore, ‘Kenosha trial’ is used to describe the incident rather than the charges itself, which helps in humanising him as well, removing the idea that there are other victims. This supports the “self-defence” frame. In The Young Turks’ headline “Rittenhouse Lawyer’s INSANE Opening Statement Blames Victims,” the emphasis is clearly on the word ‘insane,’ creating assumptions and value judgements on the proceedings of the trial. This pushes the reader to understand the content of the video and the opening statement as irrational. It also mentions the victims within the headline, similar to the CNN headline, emphasising that if there are victims, there must be perpetrators, and that perpetrator is implied to be Rittenhouse in these headlines, supporting the “provoker” frame. It is also important to note that because the Young Turks are a video based platform, one of their main intentions behind their headlines and coverage is to get views. Taking a different approach than these three news publications, The National Review almost institutionalised Rittenhouse in their headlines. For example in the headline “Rittenhouse Jury Gets It Right,” the lack of the apostrophe after Rittenhouse’s name creates the illusion that the jury is called Rittenhouse, suggesting that the jury is made for Rittenhouse. Although the trial and the verdict is implied in this headline, it is not explicit because the language of the headline immortalises Rittenhouse and places a value judgement on the verdict itself, erasing the victims and the charges. This supports the “self-defence” frame.  

Secondly, I analysed the language used in the first two paragraphs of the articles, or the first two minutes of the videos. In all three CNN articles, the shooting was mentioned within the first couple sentences. The names of the victims and words like ‘homicide’ were used to describe the trial, which supports the “provoker” frame because it places emphasis on the victims and the crime more than on Rittenhouse himself. In all three FOX news articles, the first thing to be mentioned was the verdict of the trial, which is in favour of Rittenhouse. This is followed by Rittenhouse’s defence and comments about the trial, and places emphasis on the circumstances that led to the trial by calling it ‘riots.’ This supports the “self-defence” frame because it assumes Rittenhouse as the victim of the ‘riots’ and his actions were for self-defence. Similar to the language of CNN, the Young Turks’ first few minutes described the cause of the trial as the shooting and labelled the trial as a ‘homicide’ trial, and labelled Rittenhouse as a ‘murderer’ when discussing the opposing narratives of the case. This supports the “provoker” frame because it places the blame on Rittenhouse and his actions, diminishing the claim of self-defence. The first few sentences of all three National Review articles describe the verdict first, followed by Rittenhouse’s defence arguments and describing the victims of the shooting as ‘assailants,’ or Rittenhouse’s accusations as ‘connections’ to the case. This supports the “self-defence” frame because it places blame on the protestors rather than Rittenhouse and emphasises him as the victim. 

Thirdly, I analysed the media used within the articles and videos, and what pictures or videos were used to add visual aid to the content of the articles and commentary. For the CNN articles, pictures and videos of Rittenhouse at court and giving testimony were used, followed by pictures of the victims’ families and the victims themselves. The images used of Rittenhouse in court were usually those that showed him crying during his testimony or reacting emotionally to the verdict. In a similar vein, The Young Turks’ videos featured mainly pictures and videos of Rittenhouse at the protests holding the AR-15 rifle and shooting at people. These two news publications then support the “provoker” frame because it emphasises the lives lost more than Rittenhouse. The images portray him as an assailant rather than a victim, and an emotional irrational person at court, rather than a level-headed individual. Conversely, FOX News used images of Rittenhouse entering the courtroom, Rittenhouse’s mother’s reaction to hearing the verdict, the victim’s families’ reactions to hearing the verdict, and posters of his interview with Tucker Carlson. There were also images of politicians and public figures like Joe Biden looking disappointed, Lin Wood wearing a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat, or protestors waiting outside of court ahead of the verdict announcement. The National Review also used pictures of just Rittenhouse at court for the entirety of the articles. Both of these news platforms support the “self-defence” frame because most of the attention, if not all, is given to Rittenhouse and his family or attorneys. The pictures of Rittenhouse at court make him look confident and smart, rather than emotional and irrational. Confidence exudes assurance in a certain outcome, and the choice of these images suggests a confidence in Rittenhouse’s innocence. 

Lastly, I analysed the evidence (i.e. quotations) the articles or videos used in their pieces. CNN mainly used quotations from Rittenhouse’s lawyers, the prosecutors, and the victims’ families in the body of their articles. Similarly, the Young Turks’ videos used quotations from Rittenhouse’s lawyers, the prosecutors, or other news publications like the Independent. These quotations place emphasis on the proceedings of the trial and the evidence presented in the trial, rather than Rittenhouse. They highlight the institutional opinions, which are the lawyers and prosecutors, and the families of the victims, which ends up supporting the “provoker” frame because Rittenhouse is suggested as the perpetrator, and more quotes supporting the victims are cited than those supporting Rittenhouse. FOX News primarily used quotations from Rittenhouse himself, either from the interview with Tucker Carlson, or what he said in his testimony. The emphasis is clearly placed on Rittenhouse as an individual and his perspective on the trial and events, which supports the “self-defence” frame. 

Conclusion

As mentioned earlier in the methodology section, each of the news platforms are leaning towards a certain political ideology and tend to promote and advocate for certain perspectives more than others. The creation of the two competing frames are therefore unsurprising considering the ideologies which the news publications lean towards are in competition as well. The “self-defence” frame is encouraged by FOX News and The National Review, which are right-leaning news platforms. The “provoker” frame on the other hand, is promoted by CNN and The Young Turks, which are left-leaning news platforms. These two frames help journalists and these media outlets promote their ideological perspectives. The audience and politicians then choose which frame appeals to them the most and continue to promote it. 

This particular trial is more than just about the shootings. The circumstances of the shooting and the people involved matter heavily, but which factors are emphasised depends on the frame the media or news outlet chooses to promote. The shooting happened at a Black Lives Matter protest which was advocating for ending systemic racism and oppression. News outlets which are more left-leaning, like CNN and The Young Turks, view these protests as demonstrations towards an equal and progressive society and mourn the loss of the lives during the violent altercations. In contrast, right-leaning platforms view these protests as violent unrest or riots that need to be stopped and view Rittenhouse as a hero or vigilante that stepped up during the situation. These two opposing narratives and ideological differences are embedded and perpetuated in the two competing frames.

Disclaimer: This work is original and the property of Aroni Sarkar. It is not authorised for any use, copies or dissemination.

References

Conklin, Audrey. “Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all counts in Kenosha trial.” FOX News. November 19, 2021. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty 

Creitz, Charles. “Kyle Rittenhouse interviewed by Tucker Carlson, recounts Kenosha riots, reacts to media portray of trial.” FOX News. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/kyle-rittenhouse-tucker-carlson-exclusive-kenosha-riots-media-portrayal-trial 

Evans, Zachary. “Kyle Rittenhouse Found Not Guilty on All Charges.” National Review. November 19, 2021. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-found-not-guilty-on-all-charges/#slide-1 

Flood, Brian. “Kyle Rittenhouse tells Tucker Carlson case had ‘nothing to do with race’ in first interview after acquittal.” FOX News. November 22, 2021. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/kyle-rittenhouse-tucker-carlson-first-interview-after-acquittal 

Maxouri, Christina. “Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges. Here's what we know about the 3 men he shot.” CNN. November 19, 2021. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-victims-trial/index.html  

Richmond, Todd. “​​EXPLAINER: What charges did Kyle Rittenhouse face?” Associated Press. November 19, 2021. 

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-kenosha-3febaa501c57a6b54e168353fe0b2a26 

Sanchez, Ray, Eric Levenson, and Brad Parks. “'Self-defense is not illegal': Kyle Rittenhouse tells Fox News after not-guilty verdict.” CNN. November 19, 2021. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-friday/index.html 

Sanchez, Ray, Eric Levenson, and Omar Jimenez. “Things we learned from Kyle Rittenhouse's trial that challenge assumptions about the case.” CNN. November 19, 2021. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/us/kyle-rittenhouse-what-we-learned-from-trial/index.html 

The Editors. “Rittenhouse Jury Gets It Right.” National Review. November 19, 2021.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-jury-gets-it-right/ 

The Young Turks. “Judge to Lawyers: Demonize Kyle Rittenhouse’s Victims If You Think It'll Help With The Jury.” Youtube. October 27, 2021. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OveggbYNFY&ab_channel=TheYoungTurks. 

The Young Turks. “Rittenhouse Lawyer’s INSANE Opening Statement Blames Victims.” Youtube. November 3, 2021. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU8H61ozi7Y&ab_channel=TheYoungTurks 

The Young Turks. “Rittenhouse Cries, Judge Throws Tantrum As Trial Continues.” Youtube. November 10, 2021. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szA-HctdRy8&ab_channel=TheYoungTurks 

VerBruggen, Robert. “Rittenhouse’s Fate Goes to the Jury.” National Review. November 16, 2021. https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/rittenhouses-fate-goes-to-the-jury/ 

Wolfsfeld, Gadi. Making Sense of Media & Politics: Five Principles of Political Communication. New York: Routledge, 2011.