Posted on 12/02/2006 3:28:58 PM PST by LS
BLACKSBURG, VA., November 30, 2006 -- Jim A. Kuypers, assistant professor of communication in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at Virginia Tech, reveals a disturbing world of media bias in his new book Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006).
Convincingly and without resorting to partisan politics, Kuypers strongly illustrates in eight chapters “how the press failed America in its coverage on the War on Terror.” In each comparison, Kuypers “detected massive bias on the part of the press.” In fact, Kuypers calls the mainstream news media an “anti-democratic institution” in the conclusion.
“What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeated the same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing the War on Terror,” said Kuypers, who specializes in political communication and rhetoric. “Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media (represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and Washington Post) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus.”
This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view. “In short,” Kupyers explained, “if someone were relying only on the mainstream media for information, they would have no idea what the president actually said. It was as if the press were reporting on a different speech.”
The book is essentially a “comparative framing analysis.” Overall, Kuypers examined themes about 9-11 and the War on Terror that the President used, and compared them to the themes that the press used when reporting on what the president said.
“Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner,” notes Kuypers.
At the heart of each chapter are these questions: What did President Bush talk about, and how did he want us to think about it? What did the mainstream news media talk about following president Bush’s speeches, and how did they want us to think about it?
According to Arkansas State University’s Dennis W. White, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, "This is a time of maximum danger for our country—a time of crisis. The American people historically turn to the President during these times for explanation, for comfort, and for exhortation to purpose. Yet, the President does not speak directly to the people. His speech is mediated; he speaks through the media, members of the media comment on presidential speech, and others comment on the comment. Jim Kuypers is the best in the business at explaining presidential crisis communication and its relationship to the media.”
"This is a skilled and thoughtful work of scholarship, well worth a careful reading,” said Stephen D. Cooper of Marshall University. “Kuypers's book is provocative in the best sense of the word: It can stimulate fresh thinking about presidential rhetoric and press reporting of it—which Kuypers shows can be two very different things.”
Kuypers, of Christiansburg, Va., received his Ph.D from Louisiana State University and both his bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from Florida State. He joined Virginia Tech's Department of Communication last year after having taught political communication for tens years at Dartmouth College.
Jim's previous book, Press Bias and Politics, looked at several political incidents---mostly speeches---and showed how politicians would say one thing and the press would report something completely different, namely, whatever they "wanted" the politician to say. The link to that book is here: http://www.amazon.com/Press-Bias-Politics-Controversial-Communication/dp/0275977595/sr=1-1/qid=1165102045/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6522657-1505667?ie=UTF8&s=books
and the link to the new one is here: http://www.amazon.com/Bushs-War-Justifications-Terrorist-Communication/dp/074253653X/sr=1-4/qid=1165102045/ref=sr_1_4/002-6522657-1505667?ie=UTF8&s=books
Bump and bookmarked
Sounds like Jim is someone who should be interviewed by BOR.
working links
http://www.amazon.com/Press-Bias-Politics-Controversial-Communication/dp/0275977595/sr=1-1/qid=1165102045/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6522657-1505667?ie=UTF8&s=books
and the link to the new one is here
http://www.amazon.com/Bushs-War-Justifications-Terrorist-Communication/dp/074253653X/sr=1-4/qid=1165102045/ref=sr_1_4/002-6522657-1505667?ie=UTF8&s=books
Media bias.
I am also annoyed by liberal media (NPR, PBS, etc) constantly referring to the President as "Mister Bush". Heck, even when the 'Toon was in office, I referred to him as either "President Clinton" or just "Clinton".
We know that the Muzzies bribed: English, French, Italian, Russian, and Canadian journalists.
Since when is the US Media immune? Besides being leftist, the press has been bought and paid for.
Without the internet we would be lost, too.
There's NO WAY the MSM or any Liberal talk show will invite the author to discuss THIS issue!
HA !
Bookmark bump
---
It reflects the sad state of media affairs today,, effectively inbred or should I say 'embedded' with an infatuation of the enemies of Western civilization and not even willing much less able to hide it or maybe just too stupid to realize it..
I wish you and your collaborative effort much success .
The president is talking to himself from the bottom of a well.
His speeches typically are not broadcast, they are briefly mentioned in a 10 second news-mention, in which his image will be shown while the news-reader gives the 5 second synopsis of the speech.
When you consider that his speaking tours must cost millions to set up, you can also see that the RNC advantage in fund-raising is of no help at all. As long as you are dependent upon your opponent's press organs to get your message out, you are finished before you ever get out of bed in the morning.
We have to develop our own communications networks if we ever hope to get our message out. Complaining about media bias is no help, complaining about bias misses the point completely. Of course they are "biased" toward the DNC, they "are" the DNC.
As they say, if the tree falls in the forest, the man who controls the camera and the mike gets to decide "if" it happened and why. We are losing the information war in Iraq, we are losing the information war at home, and if you lose the information war, you lose the war.
PING
Case in point.....
Certain members of the press try to discredit Bush by inferring that he claimed Iraq was directly linked to 911, when in fact he never said any such thing.
It is a simple debating trick......You fabricate a position for your opponent that you can easily debunk. It often works very well by keeping your opponent off balance and forcing them to defend against not only your points but their original so called "position" as well.
Absolutely right. Aren't there any conservatives with enough money to build or acquire a media network? The media hasn't always been a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Demonrat Party. There actually used to be newspapers with Republican editorial policy. Now all we have is Fox, which could switch any time Murdoch sees it in his interest to change.
Bookmark bump...
Media Bias? Hell, they are propagandists for enemies of our nation. The Prof is being too nice to them.
Thanks, I saw that book and didn't even pick it up because I thought it to be yet another "hit piece", I guess because of the title.
I wonder if its getting more front row shelf placement because a lot of people stocking the book are making the same mistake.
I wish him all the luck in the world on the book's sales. It's an important work. Why do I think Border's, et al. will consign it to a shelf in the back of the store?
Other than us political junkies, it seems people do listen to and then regurgitate the MSM version of events, thus the low Bush approval ratings and the '06 election results .. talk about badly serving the nation !
The press credits itself with almost single-handedly bringing about the defeat of the United States in Vietnam. This is probably true, the VC and the NVA certainly didn't do it, having lost every single tactical engagement of the war.
The modern day press views this accomplishment with great reverence and respect. They long to do what the earlier generation of propaganda peddlers did. If they can help our enemies defeat the U.S., then they, too, will elevated to the pantheon of leftist anti-heroes.
However, just like in Vietnam, the instruments of our defeat will not be the press. It will be the politicians who sell us out, just as they did in the 1970's. And it will not just be Democrat politicians, Republicans will join in the fun, figuratively stomping on the graves of those dead warriors who, obedient to their commands, willingly gave their lives in another lost cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.