The media industry is a business that plain and simple. When analyzing news content it is important to always keep this in mind, since it is only logical that any given article will be presented with a certain "spin" that not only aims to grab the reader's interest, but often aims to recite precisely what the average reader wants or is willing to hear. Monday's front-page article in the New York Times titled "On Anniversary, Bush and Cheney See Iraq Success," exemplifies this notion as it highlights the Bush administration's current quandaries at a time when President Bush's approval rating is at a record low. It also offers a barrage of "official" statements that portray the administration in a highly defensive manner. In this way, the editor has capitalized on the indexing argument by framing the issue of the war anniversary as a newsworthy conflict in government and our attention is naturally drawn to the issue to see if the conflict can be resolved.
[...] One would think this could hurt the profitability of the industry, but perhaps staying true to some objective journalism can pay off in the end as well. In concluding my analysis of this article, I think it is helpful to examine Bennett's claim that “news deliberation on important problems occurs mainly when two evenly matched sides are in conflict and keep a story advancing over a substantial period of time” (p.8). This brings me back to my initial reminder that the media industry is first and foremost a business. [...]
[...] We are then given a highly defensive quote by Donald Rumsfeld, followed by a reminder that Bush's approval rating has sunk to the low-to-mid 30% range. Clearly the article seeks to assure us that the Bush administration is in a time of tribulation, and this could play into exactly what the 70% of Bush critics want to hear. Cheney blames this on media effects, citing that a negative perception of the war has been created because “'what's newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad.'” His claim is entirely supported in Bennett's book, as it reflects a case of news dramatization that may have distorted reality. [...]
[...] The article focuses on a pseudo-event an arbitrary three-year passing and it serves only to keep readers interested in the topic of Iraq until something more substantial, and probably more profitable, comes along. The editor has left us with a hallow story that furthers his cause by sustaining our interest in today's biggest media money-maker: Iraq. Sanger, David E. and Shanker, Thom. Anniversary, Bush and Cheney See Iraq Success: A Caution from Rumsfeld.” The New York Times, March 20th, 2006. [...]
[...] The article mentions nothing about WMDs and glosses over the removal of Saddam Hussein and the spread of free elections; it instead limits our attention to the recent crisis concerning sectarian violence. This reinforces Iyengar and Kinder's claim that news stories make readers judge issues based on information that is accessible, often to the detriment of analyzing the bigger picture. Nevertheless, the editor's choice to focus our attention on the potential of civil war is entirely logical, since readers will care about it due to its prominence in recent news outlets. [...]
[...] anniversary, Bush and Cheney see Iraq success: a caution from Rumsfeld” The New York Times The media industry is a business plain and simple. When analyzing news content it is important to always keep this in mind, because it is only logical that any given article will be presented with a certain that not only aims to grab the reader's interest, but often times also aims to recite precisely what the average reader wants or is willing to hear. Monday's front-page article in the New York Times titled Anniversary, Bush and Cheney See Iraq Success,” exemplifies this notion as it highlights the Bush administration's current quandaries at a time when President Bush's approval rating is at a record low. [...]
Lecture en ligneavec notre liseuse dédiée !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture