Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh Live Thread Monday Dec 4th, 2006
Posted on 12/04/2006 8:24:04 AM PST by MNJohnnie
Communication Professor Examines Media Bias in President's Speeches Virginia Tech News ^ | 11/30/06 | Jean Elliott
Posted on 12/02/2006 5:28:58 PM CST 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 Bushs speeches, and how did they want us to think about it?
According to Arkansas State Universitys Dennis W. White, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, "This is a time of maximum danger for our countrya 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 itwhich Kuypers shows can be two very different things.
Kuypers, of Christiansburg, Va., received his Ph.D from Louisiana State University and both his bachelors degree and masters 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
michellemalkin.com ^ | December 04, 2006 | Michelle Malkin
Posted on 12/04/2006 9:20:17 AM CST by WBL 1952
This morning, the New York Times' Tom Zeller--one of the few on the case--follows up his blog coverage with an article that calls for separating "hyperbole from horror." Unfortunately, Zeller's article doesn't succeed at doing so--and has left the impression that he is, as Lucianne.com writes, "sneering at the blogosphere." Left out of the article, as Allah notes, is Zeller's discovery that the NYTimes reporter in Iraq could not substantiate the story. Zeller published the little-noticed e-mail he received from Times reporter Ed Wong on his blog last week:
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
Morning Johnnie. Bush haters are in full force on the Bolton threads. Not his fault. The SENATE will not let it happen.
I am not able to actually listen to Rush, but I am trying to understand whether the hypothesis of this book is that the media is genuinely falsely reporting or whether it is the job of the media to act as a megaphone for the President.
The former is bad, the latter is a false premise.
I certainly am no fan of the MSM, but it just plain isn't their job to echo the President. On the other hand, no news organization in the US seems capable of actually reporting facts without interjecting opinion.
Turn on CNN international and you would be surprised how different the reporting is from the US version.
No wonder I have a "bah humbug" attitude today :-(
Monday - RUSH - Hooray!
Drudge: George Mitchell said to be 'on short list' for UN ambassador...
They cannot be serious. That is disastrous.
I don't know the full details of it. We shall wait and see.
George Mitchell =RIH
What the "News Media" has been doing more and more the last decade is openly distorting, misleading and at time knowingly lying to present their own personal opinions on the issue as news. For example, the Xing out of Cheney's face by CNN during a speech, using only 6 words out of a 3 sentence explanation by a National Guard General during Hurricane Katerina, dropping all context and publishing only one sentence in the initial reporting on the Iraq NIE etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
The "News" media is acting as a propaganda front NOT as an honest broker of information. It selectively picks and chooses which sentence to report. At time it selectively edits things to present a wholly fraudulent image of what was said. There are hundreds of examples of out right fraudulent news reports during the last 6 years. The point is the Media hypes it "Fair and objective" reputation when it is neither fair nor objective nor even particularly honest. The point of the story is to destroy this mindless faith some people have that what the Junk Media is telling them is "Truth". It isn't.
All Modern Journalism is is marketing. It has next to nothing at all with the open, honest communication of ideas. Now days "Journalists" are nothing more then PR flacks. They do not communicate in an objective, open, honest way. They merely market their own emotion based agenda.
The first step on beating the terrorist has been taken by Bush,
no terrorist, or their supporters' can stand up to our Military strength.
Thank you Military personel, that do the work.
When you have even a fraction of the huge variety of sources of information commonly available to any Americans we will take you seriously. Your "News" is almost and exclusive product of your ruling elites with virtually NO alternative voices. There is a reason weblogs like Free Republic are an American invention. Your mistake is you confuse your "news" for reality. It isn't. It is merely the reality your ruling elites want you to believe.
News is just an avenue to sell things. CNN International knows what it's audience wants and gives it to them. There is little difference between them and Al Jazerra.
What the HECK is Wake Forest and Nebraska doing in the BCS?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!