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
Age Before Beauty
It's as if W has already surrendered. Very depressing indeed.
Does anyone have a website or list of where you can look up MOSQUES in your area?
Don't overestimate what is done here either, that is an even bigger mistake.
Let's get this straight, FR is the best site that I have ever seen in this country, but so many here do not understand that the old media still rules.............. because they lie larger and more often than ever.... and (more importantly) the general population is politically ignorant and disinterested.
We better do a much better job next time, because there are bad days ahead.
Why it will be 'President Obama' in 2009
By Kevin McCullough | Sunday, December 3, 2006
Barring several series of near seizure-like corrections, Barack Obama will take the Presidential oath of office in January of 2009. It will be a cold January morning, his beautiful wife and daughters will be by his side and they will shiver as he places his hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States. His presidency that will follow, if reflective of anything at all of his legislative record, will then seek to dismantle that same Constitution.
I have a long track record of predictions on Obama, and all of them have come true. I have no reason to believe that this one will conclude any differently.
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, November 13, 2006. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES)
There are reasons that this event is destined to take place, and given the option of knowing them but remaining silent, or mentioning them in the hope that the scene I've just mentioned never comes to path - I choose the latter. If any of these were to take significant turns, the formula might collapse. This is given the fact that the nation will be in a holding pattern for the next two years with absolute gridlock on pretty much everything (with the possible exception of amnesty for illegal aliens.)
RAGING LIBERALS - In 2006 the message of the voters was not Ned Lamont. Rather it was the "Crash Dummy Class of '06." Democrats who looked, and tried to talk like people of faith - at least long enough to get elected. George Soros, the Daily Kos, Al Gore, Susan Sarandon, and not to be forgotten Howard Dean, have made their go at it. They failed. But since their party won the midterms - they believe they've been justified. Their anti-American rhetoric will increase. They will express dissatisfaction with Pelosi/Reid and demand an increased presence in the 2008 picture. The democratic primary voter will reject this increased extremism and look for a "consensus builder." They will long for someone who is "above the frey." Obama will fit that profile and will bring "together" the left and right in his own party. He will do it with a sense of style, smoothness, and humor - a stark contrast to Hillary, Gore, Kerry, et al.
DIGUSTED CONSERVATIVES - Still reeling from the "ginormous" let down of the Senate under Bill Frist, and the second term Presidency of George W. Bush, normally energized conservatives will look to a field that offers a pro-choice/pro-gay mayor from New York, a Mormon from Massachusetts - who was pro-choice/pro-gay but genuinely seems now not to be - but may have hired illegal aliens, blah blah blah, or John McCain (whose single biggest problem is that he IS John McCain.) Normally eager "tax-cutting, government shrinking, let's defend our nation, pro-life, pro-family" voters, organizations, and leaders will be assaulted with speeches on Romney's health care reform, or Giulianis crime initiatives, or John McCain. Whoever emerges, will have not one tenth the oratory skills of Obama and they will come off looking as tired, dry, and stale as day-old toast.
EXHAUSTED MODERATES - They are tired of the stale toast, and will be looking for anything exciting. Mind you, moderates by definition don't truly stand for anything so it doesn't really matter what the candidate stands for. These people voted for Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton all based on one thing, "how does he make me feel?" Realizing this Obama will be a lightening rod on the campaign trail. He will draw record crowds for every appearance he makes (something he's already begun to do.) Money will flow in as a result. Obama's strategy of talking about cooperation, sounding bipartisan, and seeming to curtly rebuke both sides of the aisle will seem to validate his "ability" to "stay above the frey."
ENERGIZED BLACKS - The true voice for alternatives for black voters will not be heard because the voices of great men like Bishop Harry Jackson will not yet have become distinct enough within American media, and because the media, in ignoring the Bishop, will instead return again and again to the altar of Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. Instead, as the media is already doing, there will be near non-stop fawning over the Senator from Illinois as he flashes the big smile. Black voters, who in the majority vote for party and not conviction anyway, will see Obama as the personality that no one since Dr. King has been able to live up too. Obama will be invited to each and every significant black pulpit in America. He will rail with poetry, sing with soul, rhyme when appropriate, and never will the IRS even think of threatening even one of these houses of worship for illegal political action.
GULLIBLE EVANGELICALS - The most reliable base of voters for the Republican Party since the days of President Reagan have been the social conservatives. Church-going born-again Christians who believe in God, the importance of His word, and the significance of living out their faith in an open and compassionate way every single day have been the backbone of the GOP. This past Friday Rick Warren, through the implied endorsement of allowing Obama to speak at one of the largest evangelical churches in America gave Obama the opportunity to split evangelicals who will be misled by Obama's words instead of opening their eyes to his actions. In my gentle admonition to Rick Warren over the past couple of weeks I reiterated time and again that it was this opportunity being extended to Obama that would be manipulated by both the press , and Obama himself to pose as a "person of faith." Warren's stubborn action of insisting upon having Obama speak at Saddleback Church in southern California has had that exact effect .
Rush just read form one of our posts here,again.
Rush has been lurking in here (:
I understand that the Senate would never approve Bolton, but George Mitchell? Why doesn't he appoint Jimmy Carter and be done with it?
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.