This study indicates that newspaper coverage of gentrification is far more diverse than the gentrification literature predicts. Our analysis of 4,445 articles published between 1986 and in nine papers in seven U.S. cities with a population of one million or greater suggests that newspaper frames of gentrification range from those that are wholly supportive of gentrification to those that are strictly critical. Papers also regularly publish accounts of gentrification that reference both its perceived "costs" and "benefits." We find that coverage changes over time and that newspaper frames vary in relation to depictions of place characteristics, gentrifiers, and longtimers. As a result, this paper addresses questions in the gentrification literature about the content and tone of representations of gentrification, speaks to urban studies scholarship on culture's role in urban change processes, and reveals the mutability of the meaning and use of the term "gentrification." Finally, it serves as a call for further studies of representations of gentrification, as well as future analyses of their influence. This article constitutes the most comprehensive analysis of gentrification newspaper coverage to date and in so doing presents a frame for future research. Our analysis of content published between 1986 and 2006 by nine papers in seven U.S. cities with a population of one million or more suggests that media frames of gentrification change over time and in relation to articles' depiction of residents and gentrification stages. In contrast to prevailing analyses, we argue that newspapers present a range of perspectives on gentrification, from suggesting it as a solution to urban problems to emphasizing its risks for longtime residents.Our study addresses a persistent question in the gentrification literature about the relation between media and gentrification. Many argue that the media's pro-gentrification bias encourages the middle class, politicians, and investors to promote and engage in gentrification (e.g., Mele,