Abstract
South Africa’s Higher education system is trapped in multi-layered crises, regardless of government’s commitment to improve the sector since the democratic elections in 1994. The challenges include racial and gender inequalities, poverty, among others. Such challenges contributed to the #FEESMUSTFALL protests. The protests did not escape media scrutiny. Using framing and sociology of news production theories, the study explores frames deployed by SABC, eNCA, The Citizen, IOL and News24 in reporting the #FEESMUSTFALL protests. The study is qualitative. Purposively selected articles focusing on the protests were subjected to inductive thematic and frame analysis. In-depth semi-structured interviews were also conducted with selected journalists from the media houses. Interviews were conducted with the intention of finding out why journalists deployed specific frames observed when reporting the protests. The study notes that the media under study largely framed the protests as violent, disruptive, and counter-productive to business and learning activities. Few stories reported on the positive aspects of the protests. The study identified six frames and these include Protests disrupting business, Violent and chaotic protests, Clashes between students and Police, TUT Students used in the protests, Police behind the chaotic scenes and abuse of student rights; and Students excited to meet President Zuma. Thus, from the findings, the study argues that media frames largely conformed to the protest paradigm by criticising and marginalising the protests groups at Witwatersrand and Tshwane University of Technology. Findings of the study attempt to elaborate on the rationale behind frames deployed, packaging of news as well as omissions made. The protest paradigm became useful in discussing the stance adopted by most media houses in framing the protests. The study also pays particular attention to the sourcing patterns during the process of framing the protests. The protest paradigm was largely informed by newsroom pressures, routines, and editors’ perspectives. Journalists’ choices were limited in framing the protests.